Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PETITION

Glasgow (Strathclyde)

Mr. William Hannan: I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of the Corporation of the City of Glasgow, the largest local authority in Scotland. The petition has the support of members of both political parties in the corporation, of Members of Parliament and both sides of industry, of the Scottish Trades Union Congress, and of the Glasgow Trades Council and the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce.
The petitioners express concern about efforts in another place to thwart the will of this House by splitting up the Strathclyde region of the city of Glasgow district which we here agreed to establish under the Local Government (Scotland) Bill on 20th June 1973.
The petitioners are particularly worried about the suggested division of the Glasgow city area into several separate districts and fear that this would have disastrous consequences for all who are concerned for the welfare and future development of the city. They ask that this House should exercise its constitutional right to reject amendments which would destroy the Government's original concept of the Strathclyde region.
Wherefore, your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Concorde

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether, having regard to the drag characteristics on landing of Concorde, he will estimate the exclusions from the mean landing noise at the standard ICAO measuring point of production models of Concorde compared with the 707, DC8 and VC10 in (a) still air conditions, and (b) gusty conditions.

The Minister for Aerospace and Shipping (Mr. Michael Heseltine): The variations from the mean of Concorde's landing noise will be similar to those of subsonic aircraft in comparable conditions.

Mr. Jenkins: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that statement is not supported by expert opinion on the landing characteristics of Concorde? Will he apply to Concorde landings at Heathrow—if Concorde lands at Heathrow—the same restrictions as already apply to subsonic aircraft? If he applies such restrictions, does he realise that Concorde will not be able to land at Heathrow, and if this is not done, will it not put in question the desirability of the aircraft?

Mr. Heseltine: I think that the hon. Gentleman does not envisage the possibility that Concorde will not be allowed to land at Heathrow. In its prototype form it has already landed at Heathrow, and the latest version of Concorde, the 002—which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is flying—is substantially quieter than the earlier prototype. As to existing restrictions which may or may not apply to Heathrow at the time Concorde enters service, we shall have to consider the situation then.

Mr. Marten: Is my hon. Friend aware that when Concorde went to Washington—I was there at the time—it was a great success, and it confirmed many people's view that it would get plenty of American orders?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; the visit to America was


extremely successful. I find it surprising, as, I am sure, do many thousands of others, that this is such a source of grave disappointment to hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Mason: As the Minister knows, the 707s, DC8s and VC10s will be old aircraft when Concorde comes into service. Concorde is noticeably noisier. Will the Minister explain how the commercial types of Concorde will prove to be less noisy than the aircraft which I have just mentioned, which will be phased out at that time?

Mr. Heseltine: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman had plenty of time to consider this matter when he was responsible for these problems as a member of his Government. The design of Concorde was frozen in 1966. At that time, the latest technologies which were enabling quieter aircraft to come forward were not anticipated, and that is why Concorde is not as quiet as some of the most quiet aircraft now coming into service. But it is as quiet as the 707s, DC8s and VC10s, many of which will still be in service well past the time when Concorde enters service.

Insolvent Companies (Directors)

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will seek powers where appropriate to prevent directors of insolvent companies with deficiencies from becoming or remaining directors of other companies carrying on similar businesses.

The Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): In the next Companies Bill, I propose to extend the grounds for disqualification from acting as a director to include persons who have acted in an improper or reckless manner in relation to the affairs of companies of which they were directors. A general power to prohibit directors of companies which have become insolvent from acting as directors in future would not be justifiable.

Mr. Janner: I greatly welcome that advance, but is it enough to confine the disqualification to those who acted improperly and recklessly? Is it not disgraceful that a man can set up a business, put it into liquidation, rely on limited liability, and then immediately start up

another business in exactly the same field and do precisely the same again? When will the Government deal with this squalid practice?

Sir G. Howe: I know that the hon. and learned Member has been interested in this subject for some time. The Government's position is made entirely clear in the White Paper on company law reform published this summer. We are taking powers, as recommended by the Jenkins Committee, to deal with people who have
succeeded in steering a series of companies into insolvency.
We are also considering whether additional disclosures about directors' backgrounds, qualifications and interests would help meet the point raised by the hon. and learned Member, but it would not be easy, or indeed right, to attach an automatic prohibition to every director of every company. The reasons for that are explained in paragraph 37 of the White Paper.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: When he considers this matter, will my right hon. and learned Friend take into account the not unusual system by which a director of a company having to come off the board, for whatever reason, becomes an employee of that company and puts a relative on the board, so that the situation is almost as before?

Sir G. Howe: I shall certainly take account of the point raised by my hon. Friend.

Oil Rigs (Grants)

Mr. Edward Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what reply he has sent to the EEC Commission to its letter on the awarding of grants for oil rigs.

The Minister for Industrial Development (Mr. Christopher Chataway): A reply was sent on 12th September explaining why we disagree with the Commission's suggestion that the shipbuilding directive prevents the payment of construction grants on mobile offshore installations.

Mr. Taylor: Have we received a reply from the Commission? What will be the likely outcome of this correspondence? Can the Common Market Commission tell


the British Government not to pay grants to industry, which we have unanimously decided to do?

Mr. Chataway: No reply has been received. As I may have mentioned to my hon. Friend on the last occasion when he raised the matter, there are common rules in this area. What we are discussing is one application of one directive, which expires at the end of the year.

Mr. Benn: We welcome this vigorous defence of British interests, but will the Minister assure the House that he has the power to uphold the position that he takes—which wins the support of the whole House—against the possible application of Common Market rules?

Mr. Chataway: We believe—I think it is a view which has support in all parts of the House—that there is an interest in having common rules, and it is as much in the interests of Scotland as of any other region to ensure that there is not a bidding up of one region against another for aid. That is what the directive is about.

Sale of Goods (Prices)

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has any evidence to show that, as a result of the introduction of value added tax, there is widespread evasion of Section 11(2) of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968.

Sir. G. Howe: Out of 155 intended prosecutions under this section of the Act notified by weights and measures authorities during the six months from 1st April, only eight related to cases where an unexpected VAT charge had been made for goods.

Mrs. Oppenheim: Is not my right hon. and learned Friend aware that some traders advertise and display prices exclusive of VAT without indicating this, and that the first time consumers get to know about it is when they come to pay? Apart from the fact that this is misleading and prevents effective price comparison, it can be most distressing to consumers who cannot afford the increased price. Will my right hon. and learned Friend encourage the trading standards officers to prosecute more often in these cases?

Sir G. Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having raised this matter. As I have indicated, the number of occasions on which this has happened and led to prosecutions has not been very substantial. However, I take this opportunity of making clear that any person who quotes a price for his goods which excludes VAT but does not make clear that VAT is to be added when the goods are sold is at risk under Section 11(2) of the Trade Descriptions Act.

British Airways Board

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met the British Airways Board; and what discussion he has had with it about its estimated use of Maplin Airport.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: My right hon. Friend last met the board on 8th May; he expects to meet it again shortly. I myself have frequent meetings with the chairman and other members. Discussions have been invited with the board about how its services might best be allocated between London's three airports, after Maplin has come into operation.

Mr. Adley: Bearing in mind that my hon. Friend told me in a Written Answer a few days ago that at no city in the world is BOAC required to operate services to more than one airport, why does he intend to shackle our national carrier with the responsibility of trying effectively to operate at more than one airport in the London area? What discussions has his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who is handling the Maplin project, had with the chairman of the British Airways Board?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend will realise, I am sure, that the British Airways Board already operates from Heathrow and Gatwick. As for conversations which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment may have had with the British Airways Board, that is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend to answer. However, I am sure that any conversations which we have had in the Department are readily available to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is it not the fact that both in New York and Paris there


are several airports? Is it not customary for aircraft to land at different airports? When Maplin comes into service, is it not possible that it may be extremely expensive to land at Heathrow and much cheaper to land at Maplin?

Mr. Heseltine: The pricing policy in respect of the three London airports in the 1980s has not yet been decided. However, the hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that there is often more than one international terminal in major cities.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Is my hon. Friend aware that according to the latest information available to me Heathrow Airport will be completely cluttered and blocked by road transport unless something is done within the next two years? That is another argument for having a third airport.

Mr. Heseltine: There are many people who think that in certain conditions Heathrow is overcrowded now.

Tourist Projects (Grants)

Mr. Terry Davis: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will now reconsider his decision to restrict grants for tourist projects to the development areas.

Mr. Chataway: No, Sir. The limited funds at present available ought to be devoted to tourist projects in the development areas.

Mr. Davis: Is the aim to foster tourism or help development areas? Why can none of this money be made available to Herefordshire and Worcestershire? Is it true that the English Tourist Board has been receiving fewer applications for grants and loans than it had expected, and has therefore had to undertake a publicity campaign to attract more applications in development areas?

Mr. Chataway: The aim is to help both the development areas and tourism. It is true that twice as much money is available to the tourist board for this purpose in the current year, and it has been advertising the services that it has to offer.

Advance Factories (Northern Region)

Mr. Horam: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is satisfied with the progress of the advance factory programme in the Northern Region.

Mr. Chataway: Progress has not been as fast as I would have liked. Mainly owing to shortages and delays in the construction industry, only one may now be completed within the current financial year, but I expect that all the rest will be finished by March 1975 as originally intended, save one where there is difficulty over land.

Mr. Horam: Is the Minister aware that one of the chief causes of delay is the difficulty of acquiring land? Some factories have been held up for several years because local landowners will not sell to the appropriate body. Will the Minister look into this and undertake to discuss the matter with his colleagues in the Department of the Environment, with a view to revising their attitude to compulsory purchase in these cases?

Mr. Chataway: I shall certainly take that into account. It is true that in four cases there is some hold-up in the acquisition of land.

Coal (Electricity Generation)

Mr. Hardy: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the present share taken by coal in the generation of electricity in Great Britain and what share he estimates coal will take in one, three and five years' time.

The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tom Boardman): The arrangements between the National Coal Board and the electricity generating boards for extra coal burn under the provisions of the Coal Industry Act 1973 are expected to result in an increase in coal burn of over 7 million tons, so that about 64 per cent. of total energy input will come from coal this year. Uncertainties about fuel prices and total electricity demand mean that it is too early to predict the percentage in future years.

Mr. Hardy: The answer is interesting, but does not the Minister agree that we should be well advised to drive for a


greater production of coal and a greater recruitment of miners in order that we may have the capacity to begin to convert power stations from oil- to coal-fire generation? Does he not further agree that that situation would allow us to make the best use of offshore oil and also help to ease the developing and critical situation with regard to oil supply and price? Does not he accept that a little embarrassment would be tolerable over phase 3, in view of the advantages that would follow?

Mr. Boardman: I think the hon. Gentleman will accept that what the Government did for the coal industry under the Coal Industry Act 1973 showed a real recognition of the importance of coal, which was not always recognised by the Opposition. In the same way, what we have achieved in the exploration, exploitation and development of North Sea oil shows that the point made by the hon. Gentleman was taken on board. There is a large capacity for burning coal in the generating stations at present, and full use will be made of that.

Mr. Skeet: I hope that my hon. Friend will avoid falling into the trap of trying to estimate the quantities to be consumed by power stations five years ahead. I am glad that he has avoided it today, but the difficulty will be the price of coal. No one has attempted to evaluate that and, in addition, a lot of quantitative alternative fuels may be available by that date.

Mr. Boardman: My hon. Friend is right. One must keep a flexible approach and take into account availability, security of supply and relative cost—and that we try to do.

Mr. Varley: As the last two weeks have demonstrated the precarious nature of our oil supply, will the Minister at least insist that the Central Electricity Generating Board goes ahead firmly with two coal-fired power stations—one at West Burton in Nottinghamshire, the other at Drax in Yorkshire? Further to that, will he instruct the CEGB to conduct a basic re-examination of its power station policy?

Mr. Boardman: The hon. Gentleman knows that the West Burton design study has been put out so that that option can be carefully considered before a decision has to be made. Consent to Drax B

was given many years ago by the hon. Gentleman, but it was not implemented.
We recognise the importance of coal. We are keeping the various options open, and we must keep in mind the extent of the coal that will be available. By the 1980's the CEGB will have the capacity to burn more than 100 million tons of coal in power stations now in existence or in the course of construction.

Bank Charges

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether, in the light of the profits recently announced by most of the commercial banks, he will refer to the Monopolies Commission the charges made by the banks to their customers.

Sir G. Howe: No, Sir.

Mr. Mitchell: Is the Minister aware that most of the banks made enormous profits last year? Does he not think that some of these profits should be returned to the consumer in the form of lower charges? If the Minister will not refer the matter to the Monopolies Commission, will he refer it to either the Price Commission or the Director of Fair Trading, or take action of some other kind?

Sir G. Howe: The Government have taken action relating to banks' profits, as was made clear in the White Paper on stage 3 and in the debate last week. The amount of profits remaining available to them in relation to interest-bearing business is being reduced, because no interest is being paid on a proportion of the special deposits that each bank makes to the Bank of England. In addition, some banks have reduced their charges under stage 2 and they will continue to be subject to the price code under stage 3.

Miss Joan Hall: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that a number of people would like to know why the ordinary depositor with the banks seems to have no choice about the rate of interest he receives, and that anyone who has a current account receives no interest because the banks are extremely quick to put on charges as soon as a current account is in the red?

Sir G. Howe: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern. The position is that


the banks do not agree about charges, except in respect of a few services which do not normally affect the ordinary customer. Indeed, there has been growing evidence of competition between the banks in relation to matters of that kind.

Mr. Benn: Will the Minister explain why the Government have chosen the method that is, in effect, a tax on depositors, instead of using the powers they have to ask the banks to reduce the charges so as to make it possible for depositors to benefit from the increased profitability that has come by chance, as a result of rising interest rates?

Sir G. Howe: The control has been clearly and sensibly divided into two halves. The price code applies to non-interest-bearing business, and the banks are complying with that. They have reduced some charges, and will continue to be subject to the code. In relation to interest-bearing business, there is obviously a limit to what changes can be made in likely current rates of interest. That is why the Government have acted as they have done directly to affect bank profits by limiting the interest paid on a proportion of the special deposits.

Regional Employment Premium

Mr. John Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the progress of discussions with the CBI and TUC on the future of the regional employment premium.

Mr. Chataway: There were discussions with the CBI and TUC in the summer, and these will be taken into account in the decision, which will be reached as soon as possible.

Mr. Smith: Is the Minister aware that it is now many months since the Government threatened to abolish the regional employment premium, but since then there has been almost unanimous opinion from the CBI, the TUC, individual firms and workers, local authorities and regional development corporations all over the country that the Government should retain the regional employment premium and, indeed, increase it, as one of our most effective regional development policy aids? Is it not time that the Government came to a sensible decision about

this and decided to keep the regional employment premium so that we have a good regional development policy?

Mr. Chataway: The position that we have adopted, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is the same as that adopted by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan)—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] On 5th June 1967 the right hon. Gentleman stated—I refer hon. Members to c. 750 of HANSARD for that day—that the regional employment premium should exist for seven years and thereafter not be abolished but be phased out.

Mr. Ewing: What was the Minister's reply to the CBI submissions that the regional employment premium should be continued for a further four years and that if it were phased out this would lead to an additional 20,000 to 50,000 unemployed?

Mr. Chataway: The views put to us by the CBI and the TUC are being considered.

Dame Irene Ward: In view of what my right hon. Friend has said, may we have the evidence that has been given by the CBI and the TUC to the Prime Minister? That would be a great help. It is rather odd that when the TUC and the CBI agree on something, the Government do not agree. I should have thought that the Government would have been jolly pleased to do so.

Mr. Chataway: I am afraid that I cannot give my hon. Friend an undertaking that whenever the CBI and the TUC agree the Government will do so also.

Aircraft Noise

Mr. Tebbit: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has recently been made by his Department in the reduction of aircraft noise.

Mr. Barnes: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on progress being made by his Department to reduce aircraft noise.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: My Department undertakes a continuing and comprehensive programme to reduce noise from aircraft and the disturbance this


causes. Some recent examples of this are our massive support for the RB211 engine, and for research into the techniques of quiet engines generally; the restrictions on night movements at Heathrow and Gatwick; improvements in the runway alternation system at Heathrow; the introduction of a noise insulation grant scheme at Gatwick and the extension of this scheme at Heathrow.

Mr. Tebbit: Yes, but now that the Government have happily delayed Maplin for a couple of years and have given my hon. Friend more time to think, will he not agree to undertake a little research into the comparative effectiveness and cost effectiveness of promoting quieter aircraft, retro-fitting, and new engines, instead of going in for dubious projects on the East Coast that the construction industry does not have the capacity to perform?

Mr. Heseltine: I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate that the Government are making available substantial sums of money to the industry at large. I welcome the fact that Rolls-Royce and the British Aircraft Corporation are looking at the hush-kit technology as far as it applies to the BAC1–11. But I cannot accept that we are not doing everything within our power to assist the industry in the work that it is doing in partnership with our Department in the suppression of noise wherever possible.

Mr. Barnes: Does not the Minister agree that the restrictions on the night time use of Heathrow to which he referred have been disappointing, as the ban on take-offs has been more than outweighed by the big increase during the last two years in the number of night landings? Has not the time come for a ban on all night jet movements at Heathrow?

Mr. Heseltine: I think the hon. Member will concede that the figures are rather better than his question implies. In 1971 there were 1,638 night take-offs at Heathrow. Up to 22nd October this year there were 261 take-offs. It is perfectly true that the number of landings has increased from 1971, but the figure for 1973 over 1972 is of the same order of magnitude. The total movements show a reduction of 9 per cent. comparing 1972 with 1973.

Mr. Crouch: I was particularly interested to hear my hon. Friend saying what progress is being made in the reduction of aircraft noise and the substantial sums that are being spent. Does he consider that the progress that he expects in the next few years will have an effect upon the location of airports throughout this country?

Mr. Heseltine: One of the anxieties is the rising public expectancy of noise reduction. Although there is a continuing and welcome introduction of quieter aircraft, the public will increasingly demand an extension of the privileges that this will begin to show. This has influenced our judgment in moving to a coastal site for the third London airport.

Mr. Mason: Will the Minister now tell the House what substantial sums the Government are granting for the research and development of quieter engines, whether this includes the Spey engine, and to what extent they are enabling the industry to be financially assisted with the development of hush kits? Is the Minister aware that there is a strong feeling in the industry that the Government are purposely denying financial aid for quieter engines in order to bolster their argument for Maplin?

Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Gentleman asked about the sums made available. He will be aware that we are funding the joint project with Dowty Rotol for the variable pitch fan experimentation. The Spey engine is part of the work that BAC and Rolls-Royce are undertaking in relation to the BAC 1–11. He will realise—the point is perfectly valid—that the sums of money involved in the exploration of further technology are very small indeed and have to be seen in the context of the overall profitability of the industry, together with the substantial sums of money being put into the industry for the support of the projects at large.

Mr. Ronald Bell: While encouraging research into the suppression of aircraft noise, will my hon. Friend beware of the optimistic forecasts of retro-fit and other techniques floated by the opponents of Maplin? Will he also bear in mind the possibility that the best way for the moment, and pending Maplin, of dealing with this problem is by a 10 per cent.


reduction in all aircraft movement at Heathrow?

Mr. Heseltine: It would be unrealistic to pretend that we see a possibility of a 10 per cent. reduction in aircraft movements at Heathrow and Gatwick. Indeed, all the forecasts indicate that there will be a substantial increase for the rest of this decade. I assure my hon. Friend that we are certainly not prepared to be led along the argument that there is some magical cure by fitting hush kits or retrofitting to existing engines. That might play a part, but could easily be viewed out of proportion unless considered very carefully.

Mr. Molloy: As people afflicted by aircraft noise do not have the opportunity to express how their lives are being spoiled by it—for example, people in Ealing who suffer from the noise of Heathrow Airport—will the hon. Gentleman be prepared to consider, in conjunction with the Secretary of State for the Environment, hearing views of the local authorities around Heathrow Airport in order to discuss the matter from the point of view of those so afflicted?

Mr. Heseltine: I assure the hon. Member that although no formal consultation on the scale he suggests has taken place the Government are all too aware of the effect of aircraft noise on big urban communities. That is exactly why they decided to build a third London airport at Maplin.

Mr. Mason: Will the Minister now tell the House what substantial sums the Governments are spending on research and development of quieter aircraft engines?

Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the costs of the RB211 engine are running very high. That, in itself, is sufficient answer. The Dowty Rotol experiment is, again, costing over £2 million. I will let the right hon. Gentleman have full details of the figures.

Scottish Energy Commission

Mr. Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will examine the possibility of establishing a Scottish Energy Commission.

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Walker): I do not think such a body is necessary. I am

well aware of Scottish interests and problems in energy matters and am satisfied that they are fully taken into account under present national arrangements.

Mr. Ewing: Does the Secretary of State not agree that with the discovery of North Sea oil the need to expand refining capacity at Grangemouth and to establish refining capacity in other parts of Scotland, and, additionally, the increased demand for coal, the coal reserves at present in Scotland and the prospect of new sinkings, a Scottish Energy Commission would be the best body to handle such developments?

Mr. Walker: As the hon. Gentleman says, these are important developments and have a massive part to play in future decision-taking, but it is the decision-taking of Governments. I believe that an energy commission, as such, could not be given the powers that Governments possess to see that action is taken.

Mr. Edward Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend at least look into the situation we have had in Scotland for many years, where, despite the setting up of a British gas board, the average gas consumer pays over one-sixth more than the average consumer in England and Wales?

Mr. Walker: That is a separate question. I do not think that the creation of an energy commission will solve that problem.

Mr. Eadie: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that he gives encouragement to the proposition to set up a Scottish energy board as long as we have, for example, a differential coal price in Scotland? We pay a higher price for coal in Scotland. Does he agree that, logically, it follows that we should have a differential price for oil? Should we not have cheaper oil in Scotland, since most of it is likely to be found off the Scottish coast? What kind of logic is that?

Mr. Walker: As, at present, no oil has been landed in Scotland, it is rather early to discuss the pricing mechanism that might be suitable.

EEC Investment

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many new jobs have been created as the result of Common Market investment in the


United Kingdom since 1st January 1973; in which areas the investment has been made; and what grants have been paid in respect of such investment.

Mr. Peter Walker: The Department is aware of 39 firms with parent companies in other Common Market countries which, since 1st January 1973, have taken decisions to set up or expand operations here. These plans could eventually provide about 5,000 new jobs. I will circulate a regional analysis in the OFFICIAL REPORT. They represent, however, only a small part of total investment in the United Kingdom stimulated by our entry into the EEC. Information about regional development grants is not available in the form requested.

Mr. Marten: But were all those investments actually from the Common Market into this country? My right hon. Friend mentioned subsidiaries. Will he clarify that point? Secondly, will they receive the same grants as the British businessman investing here receives?

Mr. Walker: The answer to my hon. Friend's question about grants is, "Yes". In respect of the firms, these are 39 firms with parent companies in the Common Market. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides will be delighted at the announcement by Hoover last week, for example, that it is creating many new jobs in this country, which would not have been the case had we not been a member of the Community.

Mr. Baxter: Will the Minister make a statement at an early date, in view of the answer given to Question No. 9? The right hon. Gentleman's colleague said that the banks would not receive any interest on certain deposits with the Government. Under what regulations or statute is such a policy being pursued? In view of the disquieting nature of that statement, will the Minister take an early opportunity to present the Government's policy on the whole question of investments?

Mr. Walker: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was not called for a supplementary question on the earlier Question, but his remarks have nothing to do with the Question before us.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the regional policy

to be brought in by the Common Market on 1st January next will do a great deal to stimulate investment both from this country and from Common Market countries in Britain, to the great benefit of people in such development regions as Scotland, the North-West, the North-East, Wales, and so on?

Mr. Walker: There is no doubt that as a result of our membership of the Common Market there is far more interest in investing in Britain than would otherwise have been the case, from countries both inside and outside the Community. It is also true that the regional policy will be of assistance in that respect.

Mr. Benn: Is it not a fact that overall investment has dropped 17 per cent. since 1970, though investment intentions are supposed to be moving upward? Second, does the Secretary of State intend to seek the views of Parliament on the proposed Common Market regional policy before final agreements are reached on it by British Ministers?

Mr. Walker: It is certainly true that investment was dropping fast in about 1970. No one contributed more to that trend than did the right hon. Gentleman. I am pleased to say, now that we are three years away from the right hon. Gentleman's endeavours, that there is, as he says, a considerable upturn of confidence.
Following is the information:


Regions
New Jobs


Scotland
2,700


Wales
450


Northern
420


Yorkshire and Humberside
450


North Western
60


West Midlands
70


Eastern
860


London and South Eastern
85


South Western
15

Package Tours (Complaints)

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many complaints have been received by his Department in regard to alleged imperfections in package tours; and what action he now proposes.

Sir G. Howe: About 53 complaints have been received in the six months April to September 1973. I propose, in concert with the Director General of Fair


Trading, and in consultation with the Association of British Travel Agents, to set in hand an early study of what action may be needed.

Mr. McCrindle: In view of the inconvenience caused this year by last-minute currency surcharges on package holidays, will the Minister suggest to the appropriate authorities that the simple expedient of insuring against such currency surcharges, often imposed on package holidays at the last minute, might be pursued to prevent a repetition in 1974?

Sir G. Howe: That is certainly one of the matters that can be considered.

Mr. Rose: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the overwhelming majority of these complaints do not find their way to his Department, as a single appearance on television on this subject will show? Is the Minister further aware that what is needed is an end to exclusion clauses which take away the rights of the consumer? Is not this an ideal sector in which to try the new small claims courts, so that the consumer may take action against recalcitrant companies?

Sir G. Howe: I am glad to underline what the hon. Gentleman has said about the value of the arbitration procedure now available in the county courts as one way of obtaining remedies in complaints of this kind. In respect of exclusion clauses, it is worth remembering that more than 4½ million holidays were made last year through inclusive tours. I look forward to receiving as soon as possible the Law Commission's report on exclusion clauses in relation to contracts for services. I hope to act quickly as soon as that report is received. Meanwhile, the Director General of Fair Trading will shortly be able to keep under review matters of the kind of which the hon. Gentleman complains.

Coal Production

Mr. Cronin: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what increase he is expecting in coal production during the next six months.

Mr. Tom Boardman: On the basis of results so far, the National Coal Board expects production of coal in the year 1973–74 to be in the region of 130–135

million tons. Production in the first six months of 1973–74 was 63·4 million tons.

Mr. Cronin: As representatives of the National Union of Mineworkers are going to see the Prime Minister tomorrow to discuss their just and reasonable wage claim, may I ask the Minister to reassure the House that coal production will not be disrupted again this year by the foolish obstinacy which the Government displayed before the last coal strike? Will the hon. Gentleman also bear in mind that, with the gross inadequacy of productivity payment arrangements in the industry and the way in which the coal miners have dropped in the table of wages, any obstinacy on the part of the Government will lead to a disastrous coal strike?

Mr. Boardman: I certainly do not accept what the hon. Gentleman said. It is worth noting that in the first six months of this year productivity was 45·2 cwts. per man shift, against 44·1 in the comparable period last year. That shows full recognition of what the Government are doing to help the coal industry find a viable and strong future.

Mr. Skeet: It is a fact that the Government have done more for the coal mining industry than their predecessors did. Is it not also a fact that wages were allowed to drop back during the currency of the previous Government, and that the present Government have brought them up to date?

Mr. Boardman: My hon. Friend is right on both counts. Under the Coal Industry Act, the Government gave the industry a hope for the future which it had been denied under the previous administration. It was that which had led to an excessive contraction and undermining of morale of those engaged in the industry.

Mr. Douglas: Will the Minister accept that in the present energy situation it is essential to retain a viable mining labour force, and that stage 3 will not necessarily permit the retention of such a force? In view of the overall importance of energy supplies, will the hon. Gentleman reconsider the Government's attitude and set up a petroleum supply industry board to cater for the emergency situation in the petroleum industry?

Mr. Boardman: Petroleum is a separate matter. The hon. Gentleman will have noted what I said about the viability and future of the coal industry.

Sir T. Beamish: What are the prospects of stepping up coal production in the event of oil prices becoming excessively high, or even of oil shortages occurring?

Mr. Boardman: Following our review, which led to the Coal Industry Act and the provision of financial support, the National Coal Board has prepared a long-term plan to show the optimum level of coal production and where the coal can most effectively be produced. That is now being considered urgently so that we can make the best use of our indigenous resources and of the men employed in that industry.

Mr. Eadie: In the light of the Minister's figures for black diamonds, which he gave the House in answer to an earlier Question, does he not agree that it would be an act of sheer vandalism to convert any coal-fired power station to oil? Will the hon. Gentleman answer the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley)? Will he assure the House that if any coal-fired power stations are in the process of being converted to oil he will instruct the CEGB to stop the change-over immediately?

Mr. Boardman: The hon. Gentleman knows of conversions that have taken place, largely on environmental grounds, where it was impossible for the stations to continue in existence if they were coal-fired. They were fairly small stations, and in each case it was after full consultation with the unions concerned.

Consumer Advice Centres

Mr. Meacher: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his plans to extend the setting up of consumer advice centres.

Sir G. Howe: I have sent a document outlining my plans to local authorities and other interested bodies. I shall be meeting their representatives before the end of the year to discuss how an improved service to consumers can best be achieved.

Mr. Meacher: Is the Minister aware that his plan for extending consumer advice centres is a feeble substitute for a proper small claims court system, since it is no use consumers knowing their rights if they cannot afford to exercise them? Is the Minister further aware that, despite his consumer arbitration service, and contrary to the impression he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose), the county court system remains far too expensive and intimidating for the majority of consumers?

Sir G. Howe: The hon. Gentleman's observations on the last subject are, as almost always, wholly unhelpful. What he fails to acknowledge is that substantial reforms were made in the procedures of the county courts, both at the beginning of last year and again on 1st October this year. It is far more sensible to make effective use of the reformed agencies which exist than to embark upon the expenditure of setting up a third network of courts which would call for resources, both financial and human, which would simply not be available. The hon. Gentleman does nothing but disservice to reforms that are of fundamental importance in helping consumers achieve their legitimate rights.

Mrs. Knight: Will my right hon. and learned Friend say whether the report that he intends to set up consumer advice centres in every High Street is accurate? If so, will he advise us of the cost involved, and whether the centres are to be staffed by paid experts or volunteers?

Sir G. Howe: The ultimate object of the exercise, which I shall be discussing with local authority associations and others, is to make the best possible consumer advice available, so far as practicable, to everybody in this country. Plainly, this initiative will take some time, even with the full co-operation of the local authorities and the assistance of volunteers, to bring to full effect.

Rolls-Royce

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will now publish the results of his departmental inquiry into the affairs of Rolls-Royce Ltd., prior to the bankruptcy of 4th February 1971; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peter Walker: The report by two independent inspectors appointed under Section 165 of the Companies Act 1948 to inquire into the affairs of Rolls-Royce Ltd. was published on 2nd August. I am grateful to the inspectors for producing this report.

Mr. Whitehead: Does the Minister agree that a report of this magnitude was far too important to have been published in the depths of the Summer Recess, with no possibility of parliamentary debate upon it or a statement by the right hon. Gentleman? Does he further agree that the report should have gone into more detail about the circumstances in which the Government decided to bankrupt the company as well as to nationalise it?
I ask this in view of statements within the report, first that Lockheed, on 3rd February, was asking for more time to consider a compromise solution and, secondly, that the engine was likely to be a technical success at the moment the receiver was appointed.

Mr. Walker: As regards the timing, we thought it important to publish the report as soon as possible. The Government have already given a clear account of their part in these events in the White Paper, "Rolls-Royce Limited and the RB 211 Aero Engine".

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Why does my right hon. Friend refuse to publish the evidence that was given in the course of that inquiry, so that hon. Members can judge whether the conclusions arrived at by the inspectors on the basis of that evidence logically followed from it? Would it not be just to all the parties concerned if the evidence were published as well as the conclusions?

Mr. Walker: In reports under Section 165 it has not been customary for this to be done.

HS146

Mr. Warren: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the negotiations between Her Majesty's Government and the Hawker Siddeley company concerning the funding of the HS146 airliner.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I announced on 29th August that the Government are to invest £40 million at January 1972

prices in this project. This sum will be adjusted in accordance with movements in the general price level and any overruns in non-recurring costs, not attributable to price level movements, will be borne by the company. The Government's investment will be recovered, by levy on sales, on terms which broadly reflect the respective contributions of the two parties.
With permission, I will circulate further details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Warren: Whilst wishing every success to the aircraft and the workers engaged on it, may I ask my hon. Friend to expand a little on the Government's role in financing high-risk projects like this? For instance, it is presently understood that more than one-third of the expenditure on the project will be subcontracted to foreign suppliers. Is any preferential rôle written into the terms of Government loans like this in projects of this nature?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is referring to the fact that the project has Lycoming engines, purchased from that American company. The possibility of work on these engines being carried out by Rolls-Royce is being discussed, although it is a matter for commercial discussion between Rolls-Royce and the engine company.
It is, as the House will appreciate, a question of balance to work out where the advantage lies from the point of view both of the company and of the British taxpayer in negotiating deals of this sort. The Hawker Siddeley company put to the Government a package that included an element of overseas procurement. It seemed to the Government that, as Hawker Siddeley was investing £40 million plus of its own money, the Government would like to accept its commercial judgment on the total viability of the package and not seek to interfere with individual parts of it.

Mr. Kaufman: Would not the taxpayer be better protected if this company were taken into public ownership?

Mr. Heseltine: There always has to be a precedent, and that would be a remarkable one.

Mr. Tebbit: I congratulate my hon. Friend on deciding to support this project. Does he think that the noise level


of the HS146 will be sufficiently low for it to operate unrestricted into Heathrow?

Mr. Heseltine: The manufacturers are optimistic about the noise levels of the 146, but as to the precise conditions applying at Heathrow when the aircraft takes off and operates in service towards the latter part of this decade, we shall have to see what conditions are then prevailing at Heathrow.
Following are the details:
I announced on 29th August that the Government are to invest £40 million at January 1972 prices on this project. This sum will be adjusted in accordance with movements in the general price level and is roughly equivalent to £46 million at current prices. It represents about half the estimated non-recurring costs of the project. Should these costs turn out to be higher than forecast, the company will bear full responsibility for any cost over-runs not attributable to movements in the general price level. I am satisfied that Hawkers have the resources to undertake the project on these terms. This is an arrangement for a full risk-sharing investment by the Government rather than the launching aid which has been given in the past. The Government's investment will be recoverable by a levy on sales. The recovery terms broadly reflect the respective contributions of the two parties and the Government will share in the profits throughout the life of the project. This is the first major new aircraft launched in this country for more than a decade. I am convinced that it has excellent prospects of success, both technically and commercially, and that it will bring great benefit to the British aircraft industry as a whole.

Ship Repairing (Report)

Sir John Tilney: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he is going to publish the PA Consultants report on ship repairing in Great Britain.

Mr. Chataway: I have not yet received the report from the consultants and am not therefore in a position to make a statement about publication.

Sir John Tilney: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the importance of ship repairing to employment throughout the country, and especially on Merseyside, and that an order book which goes up and down like the spring tides is not likely to be helpful in that regard?

Mr. Chataway: Yes, Sir, and because of those difficulties we felt it right to commission this study.

Mr. Dell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his reply is very disappointing? There was expectation that this report would be in his hands by June and that he would be making a statement in July. This continuing uncertainty can only be damaging to the ship repairing industry.

Mr. Chataway: The consultants have visited a large number of ship repairers both in Great Britain and abroad. The right hon. Gentleman is right in that it has taken longer than I had hoped, but I expect to receive the report very shortly.

London and County Securities

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will take the appropriate steps to investigate the affairs of London and County Securities in view of the recent revelations regarding the 1973 annual accounts.

Sir G. Howe: The evidence at present available does not suggest that an investigation would be warranted, but my Department is making further inquiries.

Mr. Skinner: Perhaps I can enlighten the Minister. He ought to refer to the City—[An HON. MEMBER: "Question."] I will get round to that. Mr. Speaker will put me right, not you. Is the Minister aware—does that satisfy you?—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must remember that he is addressing the Chair.

Mr. Skinner: Sometimes you are right, and sometimes you are wrong. On this occasion you are right. Is the Minister aware that I could be helpful in assisting him to give advice on this matter by referring him to the City Press columns of 31st August 1973? Is he aware, for instance, that this is the company which has as one of its directors the Leader of the Liberal Party and that it has, or had, second mortgage rates of interest which could have been included in the "Guinness Book of Records"? Is he also aware that the company has been proved to have been buying its own shares, which, if there had been a foreclosure of loans, would have resulted in its owning itself, which is breaking the law? Is he also aware that after the annual general meeting the auditor of the leading subsidiary resigned? Is this not


sufficient information for an investigation to take place in order to clean up the unhealthy face of capitalism?

Sir G. Howe: The facts mentioned by the hon. Member—some of them—are the reasons why further inquiries are being made. As I said in my original reply, the evidence so far available does not suggest that any investigation would be warranted. As regards the hon. Gentleman's reference to second mortgage interest rates, he ought to know that the White Paper produced by the Government a few weeks ago contains clear proposals for extending available protection to the consumer and to all those who are concerned in second mortgage transactions on their own homes. I am glad to know that I shall have the support of the hon. Member for a speedy passage of those proposals into law when the consumer credit Bill is introduced.

Tracked Hovercraft

Sir D. Renton: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is to become of the tracked hovercraft site near Earith.

Mr. David Steel: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will now make a statement on the Select Committee Report on the hover-train project.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: As I informed the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) in my answer to his Question on 16th October, the Government are carefully considering the Committee's report and will respond as soon as possible. The Government are taking into account the Committee's recommendations about the future use of the tracked hovercraft site.

Sir D. Renton: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Earith track is of unique scientific value and that the Imperial College has offered to use it for important experiments on large linear motors and high speed suspension systems, as recommended by a Select Committee of this House? Will my hon. Friend make an early statement saying that the Imperial College is to be allowed to get on with this important job, thus helping the country to maintain its lead in this field?

Mr. Heseltine: The Government will make a detailed reply to my right hon. and learned Friend and to the Select Committee by means of a White Paper as early as possible.

Mr. Steel: Will the Minister amplify the phrase "as early as possible"? Is he aware that this matter is of particular interest to my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud)—in whose constituency part of the track is centred—and to me, because the company was at one time considering representations about possible prototype passenger carrying on the disused Waverley route? Will the Minister consider the Select Committee's recommendation that Lord Rothschild's "Think Tank" might consider the whole project?

Mr. Heseltine: The issues raised by the hon. Gentleman will be considered by the Government in their reply, although I do not believe that it would be appropriate for the "Think Tank" to do this particular exercise in addition to that for which the Government are responsible.

Smokeless Fuel (Prices)

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what are the prices of the main qualities of smokeless fuel; and how these compare with last year's prices, those of three years ago, and those of five years ago.

Mr. Tom Boardman: Estimates of typical winter prices for various qualities of solid smokeless fuels in a number of representative towns are contained in a table which, with permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Broadly comparable data for last year and three and five years ago may be found in the appropriate issues of the Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics, copies of which are in the Library of the House.

Mr. Osborn: What steps will now be taken to encourage the use of smokeless domestic fuels as an alternative to both oil and natural gas, bearing in mind that there have been some closures of smokeless fuel plants and that smokeless fuels are costly to the householder?

Mr. Boardman: The price of smokeless fuel has hardly risen. There has been a marginal increase of between 1


per cent. and 3 per cent. during the past 12 months, and the consistency of those prices should give every encouragement

TYPICAL RETAIL PRICES OF DOMESTIC FUELS IN CERTAIN LARGE TOWNS ESTIMATED 1973 WINTER PRICES






Anthracite Nuts
Phurnacite
Sunbrite
Multi-heat
Coalite Large
p per cwt. Rexco Large


Aberdeen
…
…
…
153
163
145
—
153
150


Birmingham
…
…
148
148
132
143
136
141


Brighton
…
…
…
152
154
137
—
138
142


Cardiff
…
…
…
142
142
—
136
—
—


Edinburgh
…
…
…
162
160
140
—
141
141


Ipswich
…
…
…
168
168
142
162
146
150


Liverpool
…
…
…
145
145
126
—
122
131


Leeds
…
…
…
154
153
123
—
123
130


London
…
…
…
166
162
146
152
144
152


Manchester
…
…
148
147
126
—
122
131


Newcastle
…
…
…
—
148
119
—
133
—


Nottingham
…
…
151
152
124
—
125
131


Portsmouth
…
…
…
151
150
138
146
138
—


Plymouth
…
…
…
170
170
157
155
159
167

Typical prices quoted for usually, deliveries of 5–9 cwts. Prices may vary from merchant to merchant and there may also be variations of about 1–2p per cwt. for larger or smaller deliveries.

European Space Conference

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about the European Space Conference meeting on 31st July 1973.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: The conference agreed on a fourfold programme comprising:

(1) the establishment of a European Space Agency and of agreed measures for the future harmonisation of national and European programmes;
(2) the development of Spacelab within the American post-Apollo programme;
(3) the development of the L3S launcher;
(4) the development of a maritime communications satellite.

This package was the outcome of bargaining and compromise but represents in my view a significant step forward towards the achievement of a meaningful European space effort.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Although I wish to congratulate my hon. Friend on his effort in setting up the European Space Agency, may I ask him when he expects it to become operational, and is it his intention that Britain's own space project and contributions should now be channelled through the agency, or does

for people to use smokeless fuels in substitution for other fuels.

Following are the estimates:

he intend to keep a separate space programme going as, for instance, with the geostationary satellite?

Mr. Heseltine: The intention is that the agency should come into operation on 1st April 1974. It was the intention of all the countries negotiating for the establishment of the European Space Agency that we should seek to harmonise our programmes within Europe. With that in mind, it is not the Government's intention to proceed with the geostationary satellite.

Mr. Dalyell: How was it that on 31st July the Minister allowed himself to be bullied by the French into supporting a project, namely, the L3S launcher, in which, on the basis of his own frequent public utterances, he and his Department did not for a moment believe?

Mr. Heseltine: As I have explained to the House, it was the intention of the Government to seek a proposal which was acceptable to all the European nations. I find it difficult to understand how the hon. Member could suggest that we were bullied into support for a project when all we agreed to do was to contribute a certain part of that particular project, the cost of which would be met by the British taxpayer and all of which would be matched in kind by the French, who had been investing in a different project organised by this country.

Mr. Marten: Will the new European organisation go in for a geostationary satellite?

Mr. Heseltine: The new organisation's programme will be that which is taken over from ESRO, the existing organisation. It includes the OTS project and the additional programmes agreed at the space conference.

Mr. Mason: Will the Minister say to what extent he has financially committed Her Majesty's Government to the European Space Agency?

Mr. Heseltine: The arrangements reached in the summer are, of course, accepted by Her Majesty's Government in full.

Mr. Dalyell: Answer the question.

WINDSCALE

Dr. John A. Cunningham: Dr. John A. Cunningham (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the safety and security hazards arising from the situation at the Windscale British Nuclear Fuel site in Cumberland where, due to an industrial dispute, security, emergency and nuclear monitoring services are no longer operating.

The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tom Boardman): Managerial supervisory and security staff are not involved in the dispute and are maintaining all essential security, emergency and nuclear monitoring services. The plant has been shut down apart from one reactor which is operating at less than half power to provide a source of steam and electricity. Inspectors of nuclear installations are making frequent visits to the site and are satisfied with the measures being taken by the management.

Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful for the reply, but will the Minister confirm that the normal safety and security staff are not doing their jobs and that in the event of a fire none of the regular fire services could be provided within the site? Will he also say what is to happen to those elements which may be in transit either by sea or rail to the Windscale plutonium factory and what precautions are being taken to safeguard them if they arrive

in the Cumberland area and cannot gain access to the factory?
Will he further reassure the House that everything is being done by his Department and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to resolve this dispute? Is he aware that because of the nuclear incident at Wind-scale some weeks ago a considerable number of workers were heavily irradiated, some of them still not having been given medical clearance? In view of that the trade unions have used the full negotiating procedure to try to reach a settlement with the management of British Nuclear Fuels. They have been rebuffed and no date has been set for a further meeting. Is that not a serious state of affairs?

Mr. Boardman: I must reassure the hon. Member again. All emergency and security services are being fully maintained. As for the fire services, while it is true that the works fire brigade is taking part in the dispute, the management has made arrangements with the local fire brigade to ensure that all these services are available and will be properly manned.
As for the transfer of spent fuel elements, these will be retained at the respective power stations until conditions are suitable for them to be accepted. There should be no problem here. The hon. Member asked about intervention to resolve the dispute. He will not expect me to comment on the dispute. Perhaps it is sufficient to say that I understand that there are meetings of the joint industrial council tomorrow and no doubt the differences will be discussed. I hope they will be resolved.

Mr. Benn: As the dispute is linked to an incident involving the safety of the plant and as that incident and earlier incidents occurred when the plant was working normally, does not the Minister see that there is a case for intervention not only to give assurances about safely of the public at large but also so that those working there recognise that the Government take the question of safety as seriously as I am sure they do?

Mr. Boardman: Every assurance to the public about safety is given in the statement I made. If there is doubt left in any hon. or right hon. Member's mind, let


me repeat that all necessary security emergency and monitoring services are being fully maintained so that there is no risk.
It would be inappropriate for me to comment on the incident itself. I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to a reply I gave to the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown). There will be a report in due course from the nuclear inspectorate which will be considered when it is received. But it would not be appropriate to comment upon the incident while the investigation is proceeding.

MIDDLE EAST

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement on the Middle East.
The House will know that the Security Council passed a resolution last night calling for an immediate end to the fighting in the Middle East; for the immediate implementation of Resolution 242 in all its parts; and for immediate and concurrent negotiations between the parties concerned under appropriate auspices aimed at establishing a just and durable peace in the area. Hon. Members on all sides of the House will, I am sure, welcome the news without reserve.
As I told the House last week, all our diplomatic efforts have been directed towards achieving a cease-fire and a full settlement. I have been in close touch with the parties to the conflict, with the Americans and the Russians, and with our European allies during these anxious days. I cannot be absolutely sure of the positon, as I speak now, but the indications at present are that the Israeli, Egyptian and Jordanian Governments will accept the terms of the Security Council resolution, which calls for a cease-fire by 6 p.m. today London time, and I have just heard before I came into the Chamber that President Sadat has given orders for the cease-fire to be observed at the time fixed. The Israeli Government has issued a similar statement. Each party's acceptance is of course contingent on the acceptance by the others. The attitude of Syria is still

obscure. Hon. Members will I am sure join with me in appealing to the parties scrupulously to observe the Security Council's call for an end to the fighting.
As the British Permanent Representative to the United Nations said in the Security Council last night, we realise that the road to a settlement will not be easy. This time the momentum towards peace must not be allowed to slacken. As I assured the House last week, we remain ready in this country to contribute in any way we can both to making the peace and to keeping it. I believe that the international community should and will have a part to play in providing guarantees. We will help in this if required to do so to the extent of providing a part of a peace-keeping force.
Dr. Kissinger's present intention is to stop briefly in London on his way back to America from Moscow and Tel Aviv. Obviously his programme is liable to change, but if he is able to stick to his plan I shall see him later tonight and will be able to discuss this and other matters with him.
We are at the beginning of a long and complicated process but the opportunity for a real peace does now exist. I shall continue to keep the House informed.

Mr. Callaghan: We join the Foreign Secretary in welcoming what seems to be the end of hostilities for the time being and we express, too, the fervent hope that this will be the beginning of a genuine peace. The
immediate implementation of Resolution 242 in all its parts
is as ambiguous a phrase as could be adduced at present. I recognise that it is probably the Americans and the Russians who have played the major part in getting the resolution together, but do the words
immediate and concurrent negotiations between the parties concerned
mean in the Foreign Secretary's understanding that there will be direct discussions between Israel and Egypt, which has always seemed to be an essential part of the negotiations?
Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman raise with Dr. Kissinger when he comes to London this evening whether Dr. Kissinger and Mr. Brezhnev have discussed the future of the Palestinians, because I noticed that the resolution was


silent about that and I have heard nothing about that particular matter.
Thirdly, it is my preliminary estimation that there would be no difficulty in any part of the House in accepting the right hon. Gentleman's view that Britain should help to provide part of a peacekeeping force if conducted under United Nations' auspices and there is general agreement to it. If this were one of the ways of achieving a peaceful settlement, we would want to play our part.
Can the Foreign Secretary, either now or later, report to the House after his conversation with Dr. Kissinger what he understands to be the future of our oil supplies?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The implications for the United Kingdom of the decision by the Arab producers to reduce oil production are not clear. As I told the House last week, there is no indication that the restrictions which are being talked about are specifically directed against this country. Nevertheless, we could be affected, and the Government are naturally reviewing the contingency arrangements to deal with any situation in which our supplies might be significantly reduced.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will keep the House informed on this matter and on the situation as it develops. But it is not at the moment clear. In the meantime, it makes good sense for all consumers to see what they can do to economise by cutting non-essential use of fuel. I shall discuss this with Dr. Kissinger to see whether he knows more.
It is true that interpretation of Resolution 242 has been the centre of difficulty all the time. I should not like to anticipate now the discussions, but I am sure that demilitarised zones, to provide a buffer of security for all the countries, must be part of the settlement.
Will these be direct discussions between the parties? That, as the right hon. Gentleman truly says, has been the difficulty up till now. I hope there will be direct discussions, but I am sure they will have to have help.
The Palestinian problem must be part of a final settlement—otherwise, of course, the settlement would not stick.

Sir D. Dodds-Parker: Can the Foreign Secretary say whether any progress has been made in the Council of Ministers towards a European underwriting of any final settlement?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The Middle East experts of the European countries of the Nine are meeting today to discuss the matter. There has been a pretty good unanimity in the Council that the European countries would help in peacekeeping if that proved to be necessary.

Mr. Thorpe: The Foreign Secretary will be aware that there will be worldwide relief that the fighting is likely to stop. Since the cease-fire is conditional upon general acceptance by all concerned, and since Syria and Iraq have not yet expressed their view—and, indeed, Syria has never accepted Resolution 242—will the Foreign Secretary bear in mind, and put to Dr. Kissinger, that, in the event of there not being acceptance from that quarter, there might none the less be a cease-fire on the Egyptian and the Israeli front in Sinai, even in default of the other?
Since it is generally accepted that Resolution 242 was accepted because it meant different things to different people, should there be ambiguity whether talks and withdrawal are to be immediately concurrent, would the right hon. Gentleman consider what sort of machinery ought to exist, possibly under the Secretary-General's chairmanship, to try to remove ambiguities which could cause the cease-fire to be ended with one or either side claiming that it had not been honoured?
Finally, although this move for a cease-fire was clearly on the initiative of the super-Powers, would the right hon. Gentleman confirm that if anyone had any doubts of the necessity for a world forum such as United Nations, the events of the last 24 hours have proved it?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Any settlement must be under the broad umbrella of the United Nations and the Secretary-General will, I think, have to take a part, and would want to do so. On the right hon. Gentleman's first question whether, if Iraq stood out alone, let us say, she could be in a position to stop the process of the cease-fire and negotiations, one has to remember that Iraq


never did, since 1948, accept any cease-fire. In the documents, although I hope to know more about this tonight, the word "reciprocity" is used about relations between the Israelis and Egyptians, for example, and the Israelis and the Jordanians, and so it is possible that we might have a cease-fire on one or two fronts even if Iraq stood out.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Would it be true to say that this conflict may have brought nearer the achievement of a common foreign policy between the nine members of the EEC?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I hope that that would be so. They are completely agreed now on the arms policy which they are pursuing and which will have to be reviewed, just as we review ours. We are completely united on that. I think they are united, too, that, when it appears how Europe could help in the Middle East, it would be willing to do so.

Mr. Mayhew: The Foreign Secretary will recall that the needs of the Palestinians form part of Resolution 242. Will he assure us that he recognises that in the weeks ahead, if a settlement is to be lasting, some generous restitution needs to be made to the Palestinians, not only by the Israelis but with the help of other countries, including Britain?
May I suggest also that recent events present a considerable justification of the policy which the right hon. Gentleman laid down in Harrogate and the decisions that he has taken since?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: One can only hope that in this situation any contribution one makes is helpful to somebody. It is not an easy job to find the right policy in this kind of situation. I hope that Harrogate was one contribution that may be useful.
The question of the Palestinians must clearly form part of a complete and long-term settlement. I hope that we shall not become too euphoric at this moment because there are many difficulties in the way. One step at a time is perhaps enough.

Mr. Finsberg: At the end of his statement, my right hon. Friend said that Britain would be prepared, if necessary, to contribute to any international peace force. Would he make it clear to the

House that, if we are prepared to contribute to such a force, that force may not be withdrawn at the whim of one side or the other?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: After the performance of the last Secretary-General of the United Nations, that would have to be a condition.

Mr. Frank Allaun: In reaching a settlement, will the British Government take the initiative among the Big Four to stop all future arms supplies to both sides? Secondly, would the Foreign Secretary agree that, although a few days ago it looked as if this were going to be a fatal blow to the détente, if a cease-fire takes place it may well be that we are much nearer a détente and world peace than we were before the whole business started?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I echo profoundly the hope expressed by the hon. Gentleman in the last part of his question. As to stopping all arms to the area, if there is to be peace arms will have to be strictly rationed or stopped. This is a matter about which I shall be talking to Dr. Kissinger. I do not know as yet how far the Russians and the Americans have taken this question of limitation of arms into the area.

Mr. Crouch: The whole House will want to congratulate my right hon. Friend on having kept his cool in the last few days, whether or not there has been agreement with the decision that he made and recommended to the Government. However, it is one thing for the super-Powers to take decisions to help to bring about a cease-fire, but will he see that the recent decision that the Government made to apply an arms embargo is equally used to influence an effective peace settlement?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: If we are realistic, this had to start with the two super-Powers, the United States and the Soviet Union. The process of peacemaking has just begun, and no more than that. I must underline that. As I have said, arms limitations or an embargo will have to be part of a permanent settlement.

Mr. Tinn: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the interests of the Palestinian Arabs cannot be adequately protected without their participation in


any discussions leading to a peace settlement? Would it not be the height of hypocrisy for the world, which has often condemned the actions of the Palestinian Arabs in seeking to draw attention to their grievances, if the negotiations were allowed to take place over their heads?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes, Sir. I take note of what the hon. Gentleman said and recognise the importance of this question. I think we ought not to try to define too closely today how much will be settled and how soon.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: While accepting that an international arms embargo is obviously an important and contributory factor to world peace, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend can say in what respect the influence of the United States and of Russia in the peace negotiations has been diminished by the fact that they have supplied arms, and what key role do we expect to play as a result of not supplying arms?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: In response to my hon. Friend, I would say that the Russians and the Americans have been the main suppliers in the area, but the situation gradually built up into a war. The situation which we want to create is one in which arms will play a smaller and smaller part, and in which we can move towards peace. This limitation or embargo may help, and we certainly hope that it will do so.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: If the Foreign Secretary agrees that the peace-makers in Moscow have done a great job, will he make sure that Dr. Kissinger is tonight congratulated on his award of the Nobel Peace Prize? There is a report—I hope a scurrilous report and quite unfounded—that the British Government have so far failed to congratulate him.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have already congratulated him, but I have no objection to congratulating him twice.

Mr. Fidler: Will my right hon. Friend accept the great feeling of relief on all sides of the House, and throughout the country, at the prospect of a cease-fire at 6 p.m. this evening with no further loss of life, and the prospect of both sides—Israel and her Arab neighbours—coming into direct negotiation? In addition, may

I ask my right hon. Friend, in line with his non-intervention policy announced last week, which inter alia denied spare parts and arms to Israel, the victims of aggression, what steps he proposes to take, either in conjunction with his own friends or with his European partners, to ensure that no special loans are raised in the City of London directly to assist Egypt and Syria in the purchase of arms, as might be indicated by the proposed loan through Morgan Grenfell for Abu Dhabi, which is supplying such money to them?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: As I understand it, commercial transactions by banks or companies of any kind are carried out within the rules laid down by the Bank of England or by the Economic Departments or the Treasury, and are not the concern of the Foreign Office.

Mr. Harold Wilson: While joining in the warm welcome which my right hon. Friend and other right hon. Members have given—above all, because of the terrible casualties between Arab and Jew until the cease-fire could be achieved—may I put these questions to the right hon. Gentleman? First, on my right hon. Friend's point about negotiations, will the right hon. Gentleman share our pleasure that while, as all of us agreed last week, Resolution No. 242 was capable of different interpretations, there are now to be negotiations, which I hope, speaking for myself, will be direct negotiations at the appropriate time? Will he confirm that the Israel Government have for years pressed for direct negotiations which, indeed, I called for at the end of my speech last week? Secondly, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on the question of the Palestinians, we on this side of the House—and I think it is true of the right hon. Gentleman—have always emphasised that no settlement, whether a comprehensive settlement or even just a local and limited one, as was proposed by the Americans for the Suez Canal, is possible or lasting without a generous provision for the Palestinians, which I myself have reason to believe was available if direct negotiations could have occurred before this tragic fight?
Thirdly, since one of the requirements of Resolution No. 242 is secure and defensible frontiers, and since these can be assisted by internationally effective


guarantees, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in what he said last week and again today he will have our full support for international forces, with indeed the participation of British forces, if this is considered necessary and helpful, provided, as my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman said, and as I said last week, that they cannot be withdrawn at the moment of danger on the initiative of any of the parties? Finally, will he confirm that if peace has been secured and this ghastly murderous duel has been ended, it has been ended, as we forecast last week, by the wisdom of the duellists' seconds and by nobody else?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The duellists' seconds, as the right hon. Gentleman put it in that way, have been supplying each side with arms and the situation was gradually aggravated to a point where there was a war. I hope, with him, that we are indeed approaching the organisation of a lasting peace.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about direct negotiations. I cannot, of course, reply on behalf of Israel or the Arab nations. Direct negotiations after the war are best, but if they cannot come to direct negotiations, then others must put themselves in a position to help. I am quite sure that the question of the Palestinians must be part of a final settlement and that, as I said just now, such a settlement will not stick unless it is. On secure and defensible frontiers, I am pretty certain, as I said just now, that there will have to be buffer zones, demilitarised zones. How they will be policed is a matter for discussion. What is quite certain is that if there is an international force involved it must not be withdrawn by one side or the other.

CLERK OF THE HOUSE (RESIGNATION)

Mr. Speaker: I have two statements to make to the House. I have to inform the House that I have received a letter from the Clerk of the House in the following terms:
I write in accordance with custom to let you know that I wish to resign my position as Clerk of the House at the end of this year. On 31st December I shall have completed exactly forty-three years in the service of the Commons including twelve years as the Clerk, when I had the honour of presiding in the House on five occasions during the election of the Speaker.

Throughout these years my work has been made lighter by the help of many colleagues and especiallly by the kindly tolerance of the Chair and of Members of all parties. For that help and kindness I shall always be deeply grateful.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior): I am sure that the whole House will wish to pay tribute to the distinguished service that the Clerk has given, but there will be an opportunity to express our thanks on a motion at a later date. I suggest, therefore, that this afternoon we follow precedent and reserve our remarks for that occasion.

Mr. Harold Wilson: I, too, am assuming that there will be another opportunity of paying tribute to one who has served this House faithfully in many capacities—most of all as Clerk of the House—and to express the hope that the views of the House, not only of Front Benchers but of hon. Members in all parts of the House, will be sought before a successor is appointed.

Mr. Speaker: With regard to that, I think it is important that I should deal with that point—and the reason will become apparent from the second statement that I shall make. Although I gather that it is not in accordance with precedent for it to be announced in the House, I think that this is a matter of which the House should be informed. I am glad to say that the Queen has approved the Prime Minister's recommendation, made after consultation with me, that Mr. D. W. S. Lidderdale should succeed Sir Barnett Cocks as Clerk of the House of Commons.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (ADMINISTRATION)

Mr. Speaker: If I may now make my second statement, the arrangements for organising and staffing the administration of the House of Commons have grown up over a very long period. It has become increasingly clear in recent years that they are in some ways ill-fitted for providing the House with a thoroughly efficient and effective service. The features of those arrangements which are currently causing concern include:
A feeling which appears to be fairly widespread among Members that there


is a lack of co-ordination between the five largely independent departments of the House;
The system of making appointments, not only at top level, but further down the scale with consequent problems over career structure and personnel management.
The division into five self-contained departments, and the absence of a regular retiring age for most senior officers, are factors in these matters.
Following a preliminary inquiry, at the Clerk's request, into his department by the Management Services Division of the Civil Service Department, I am of the opinion that a review conducted on a wider basis than that of one department would be of value.
After consulting the Leaders of the main political parties, the Leader of the House, and others concerned in these matters, I have arranged for a review to be undertaken of the administrative services of the House, with the following terms of reference:
To consider and make recommendations if necessary involving legislation) on the organisation and staffing of the House of Commons, including
(i) the structure, organisation and coordination of the services now provided by the five Departments, namely, the Departments of the Speaker, Clerk of the House, Serjeant at Arms; the Library and the Administration Department,
(ii) recruitment, terms of service, promotion and appointment of all staff, including those in the highest posts."
I am glad to say that Sir Edmund Compton has accepted my invitation to undertake the review: he will be supported by a team drawn from the Management Services Division of the Civil Service Department. I hope that the recommendations of the review will be available to me by the end of the next Parliamentary Session.
I propose that the recommendations should then be considered by a small committee of Members before being submitted to the House for decision.

Mr. Wellbeloved: On the second statement which you made, Mr. Speaker, concerning the appointment of a successor to Sir Barnett Cocks, may I, as a back-bench Member, express my utmost protest that this appointment has been made

without any consultation with Members of this House.

Mr. Speaker: The appointment has been made in accordance with precedent. The hon. Member will notice that I have included this very point in the terms of reference. I think I was right—in fact I have no doubt that I was—to act in accordance with precedent. Now this point will be wide open for consideration, although it will take some time for the result of that consideration to reach me.

Mr. David Steel: While welcoming the main statement which you made to the House, Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether it would be in order, or expected, for hon. Members themselves to give evidence to Sir Edmund Compton rather than simply wait for the outcome of his report and then have it sent to a committee?
On a separate matter, could you say whether the inquiry is intended to be wide enough to include consideration of the terms of Early Day Motion 397 about the status of Members' secretaries, or is it intended that the review should not be as wide as that?

Mr. Speaker: On the first point, I have discussed this with Sir Edmund Compton and I am clear that he will seek the opinions of hon. Members. I shall require notice of the second point.

Dame Irene Ward: May I ask whether, in the new administrative arrangements which are proposed for helping the House of Commons, you would include the services which have been rendered by Ashworths? This is a matter of great importance to hon. Members, and I am not at all pleased at some of the things which I have heard recently. In fact, I am very annoyed indeed. Not nearly enough attention has been paid to the work which Ashworths do for Members, and this is a wonderful opportunity for me to say so to you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I think that follows closely on the point made by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) about secretarial services.

Mr. Sheldon: Would not another way of looking at this have been to appoint a Select Committee which should have been allowed to produce a management


report from the Management Services Department of the Civil Service Department? Would not this have been a solution somewhat akin to the Fulton Committee method, rather than the procedure which has been outlined?

Mr. Speaker: These are matters of opinion and judgment. I think the House will be well served by a report from Sir Edmund Compton. But I have insisted that it should be considered by this House before the Government or the usual channels make up their minds.

Mr. William Hamilton: May I ask where all this originated? As far as I know, no back-bench Member of the House has been consulted in any way. These are matters which very much concern us. Sir Edmund Compton, with great respect to him—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why great respect?"]—well, with due respect to him, is not competent to deal with matters which concern us as individual Members of this House, and I should have thought that a proposition such as this might have been put down in the form of a motion in the name of the Government for debate by the House. I hope that this is not in any way decided, and that we shall not be presented with a fait accompli.
I mean no disrespect to the Clerk whose appointment has been announced, but this is a matter for the House and for nobody else. We ought to have some say in who is to be the Clerk of the House. It should not come from Buckingham Palace or from anywhere else.

Mr. Speaker: That may emerge, but that is not the present position. The present position is clearly laid down. I am to be consulted. The Prime Minister is to make a recommendation and then the appointment is made. That may be the wrong procedure—I do not know—but it is the present procedure and we have always acted according to the procedure.
The hon. Member suggests that the proposition should be put to the House. I have to try to discharge my duty as best I can. I know that there is a considerable feeling of dissatisfaction or uncertainty about these five departments of the House and the way in which their activities are co-ordinated and managed. And I am certain that a report by Sir Edmund Compton will be helpful.

It does not exclude these other matters. People may speak to him. It does not exclude anything and there will be no fait accompli.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: The question of the services rendered by the departments of the House to hon. Members—Government and Opposition, Front Bench and back-bench Members—is of considerable importance, and I should have thought that the terms of reference of a committee such as you have mentioned, Mr. Speaker, should certainly have been a matter for considerable consultation between both sides of the House. It is certainly not a matter for the Government Front Bench alone. Judging by the nodding of heads which I have seen going on in front of me, I question very much whether consultation through the usual channels and a cursory exchange of words with the Lord President of the Council is an acceptable procedure. As a back-bench Member, I protest at the way in which this has been done.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member may certainly protest, but I do not think the terms of reference exclude anything.

Mr. George Cunningham: Reverting to the suggested appointment of Sir Edmund Compton, are we to take it that that is a decision which has already been taken and that there is no way in which the House could invite you to reconsider so that the House itself could take a decision on that point? Speaking for myself, I would be greatly opposed to the appointment of Sir Edmund Compton, not only because he is not a Member of this House and does not necessarily understand its ways, despite his previous appointments, but also because he was the author of a report on a totally different subject which called his judgment into question, in my view.
May I suggest that you reconsider the matter in order to find a way of putting to the House for its decision the question who is to carry out a preliminary inquiry?

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that is not possible. I consulted the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Party, and I formed my own judgment. I have considerable knowledge and experience of Sir Edmund Compton and I think it is a very good choice indeed. Any hon. Member will be able to put forward


his point of view; nothing will be excluded from this examination.

Mr. Harold Wilson: I think there has been a slip up, Mr. Speaker. I agree that you asked me to see you on this matter and explained how your mind was working. I thought that I was going to receive a document about this which I could discuss with my hon. Friends. It looks as though the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Liberal Party have got a document, and it may be that one has been sent to my office and that I have not seen it because of my absence from London. If there were a document, it ought to be capable of fuller discussion by the Cabinet and the Shadow Cabinet.

Mr. Speaker: I am very sorry about this, but the Leader of the Opposition did see a document. I have asked him about the matter. I do not think that it is wise for me to reveal what happens at that type of confidential discussion. The House would be better advised to leave the matter where it is.

Mr. Thorpe: May I say for the record, Mr. Speaker, that you courteously consulted me on this matter—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about Harold?"] No doubt this point was not heard by some hon. Members when you made your statement. However, I did not receive a document, nor did I have any expectation of receiving one.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order read for consideration of Lords amendments.

4.10 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): I beg to move—

Mr. William Ross: On a point of order. In fact, I wish to raise two points of order. The first relates to how we are to conduct the proceedings. All but one of the Government's amendments in response to the Lords amendments are starred amendments. It is within your discretion, Mr. Speaker, whether starred amendments are called. I take it that they are being called. That being so, what is the position when the Government have difficulty in meeting the time limits?
The Leader of the House tried very hard to acquaint me with the Government's response to the Lords amendments, but it is very difficult, in a Scotland-bound train at midnight, to understand what is meant by Lords Amendment No. 45, with which the Government will ask the House to disagree, if one does not have the list of amendments. It is nonsense. Until they arrived here this morning most hon. Members did not have a clue about what was involved.
Although I hope that the need will not arise, will you be willing, Mr. Speaker, to consider the possibility of manuscript amendments if some of my hon. Friends think them necessary?

Mr. Speaker: I will certainly consider that possibility.

Mr. Ross: My second point is much more serious. In the Government's list of amendments to the Lords amendments there are controversial amendments, undiscussed in another place or in this House, introducing for the first time far-reaching proposals. They merit, if they are to be discussed at all, virtual Committee procedure. If they had been produced on Report we should probably have had to go back into Committee to discuss them. I refer, for instance, to Government Amendments Nos. (h) and (j).
Is not it an abuse of the principles and procedures of the House for the Government at this stage so to use the Lords


amendment procedure in order to introduce considerable new elements? Has consideration been given to this point?

Mr. Speaker: I examined this point with my advisers. I am advised that there is nothing out of order, no matter what comment may be made about the way in which the matter has come before the House today.

Mr. William Baxter: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am greatly disturbed about the matter. In a short intervention on Friday I pointed out my concern about the irregularity of the proceedings on Thursday evening. The Lord President of the Council admitted, as reported at column 558 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of 19th October, that he had then done something rather irregular in issuing amendments to the Lords amendments to the Opposition Front Bench and certain other members of the Opposition, and failing to issue them to all Scottish Members. Surely there was no difficulty in getting sufficient photostat copies within half an hour, or less, so that they could be circulated to all hon. Members.
What was done seems to be a total disregard of the proper procedure of the House. It has given us no opportunity to study the amendments to the Lords amendments, or to get legal advice from the Table whether we could compose competent amendments to the Govern-amendments to the Lords amendments or, in view of the alteration in the general set-up of the Strathclyde area, and the necessity to look at that question vis-à-vis the central area of Scotland, whether amendments could have been put forward for at least your consideration, Mr. Speaker. No time has been made available for hon. Members to do that and to have the necessary consultations to put such points before the House.
In view of this very unsatisfactory state of affairs, and the unsatisfactory attitude of the Lord President of the Council, who has violated every code of good conduct, I wish to have your ruling, Mr. Speaker, whether this debate can be suspended so as to give us more opportunity to consider the Government's proposals. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said, their implications are far-reaching.
Many local authorities throughout Scotland have observations on the Government amendments to the Lords amendments. I have a telegram in my pocket from Stirlingshire County Council and I have had letters and approaches from other local authorities. I do not know how they obtained their information about the Government amendments. It is not the proper way to conduct the business of the House to push through an issue of major importance to the wellbeing of local authorities in Scotland without the consideration which it deserves.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior): Further to the point of order. On Friday I apologised to the House if, inadvertently, I had given a wrong impression in answer to Business Questions on Thursday afternoon. You have said this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, that you would accept manuscript amendments—

Mr. Speaker: I said I would consider them.

Mr. Prior: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. You said that you would consider them. The Lords amendments, and the amendments of my right hon. Friend to the Lords amendments, were available from Friday morning.

Mr. Baxter: No, they were not.

Mr. Prior: They were available at 11.15 on Friday morning. [Interruption.] I am sorry, they were available at 11.45. [Interruption.] I am now told that they were available at 11.25 on Friday morning, but I do not wish to argue over a few minutes. When I heard on Thursday afternoon that there was a delay in obtaining the amendments to the Lords amendments I thought that it would be a courtesy to as many hon. Members as possible to provide them at that time with a copy of the amendments. It was for that reason that on Friday morning I made the statement which I made.
What I did was not meant to be a discourtesy to the remainder of hon. Members who had not received the amendments. It was intended as advance notice to certain hon. Members, and was done out of courtesy to them. This action at no time altered the position


of other hon. Members, or their rights or opportunities to put down amendments, as they could have done on Friday. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not accuse me of irregular procedure. What I used was procedure which was designed merely to help certain hon. Members where I could do so.

Mr. Baxter: Further to that point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must try to conduct our affairs according to the rules of order. The only matter in which the Chair is involved here is whether I will consider manuscript amendments. I have said that I will. Nothing that the Government have done is out of order. It may be undesirable; it may be that it can be criticised. One can say what one likes. It may in fact be desirable. But those are not matters for the Chair. I must insist that the Chair is asked to pronounce only on matters within the Standing Orders. Nothing out of order has occurred. We had better get on.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: May I raise the point which my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) put succinctly, and which you said was in order, Mr. Speaker? As far as we can divine from the proceedings on the English Bill, there is no precedent for the admission of amendments (g) and (h). If you allow them, surely that is setting a new precedent.

Mr. Speaker: That was exactly what I was invited to do when I was elected Speaker. All I say at present is that there is nothing out of order.

Mr. James Sillars: The Bill is before the whole House of Commons of the United Kingdom. Therefore, it should be open to every hon. Member to submit a manuscript amendment. Those who sit for Scottish constituencies have a great deal of trouble understanding the Bill as now amended and as the Government intend further to amend it, but it would be almost impossible for a Member who did not sit for a Scottish constituency to understand it.
There was very little time for Members to read the Bill and the amendments, but I am sure the Government will use in the Lobbies Members who are in total

ignorance of the situation. Is not that a sound reason for suggesting to the Leader of the House that today's business should be withdrawn and be dealt with later in the week?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair. If I were to judge the capacity of hon. Members to deal with the business before the House, I should be starting to tread on very dangerous ground. Mr. Gordon Campbell—

Mr. Gordon Campbell: With regard to the first point that has been raised, the present situation has occurred because Parliament has been given just two weeks to take the remaining stages. Because of the enormous time taken by Labour Members in the Committee to deal with the amendments, the Bill did not reach the other place until June. The other place understandably felt that it was not given enough time, but we warned hon. Members—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have said that this is not a matter for the Chair. It is not a matter of order. I was calling the right hon. Gentleman to move his motion.

Lords amendments considered.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I beg to move,
That the Lords Amendments to Schedule 1 to the Local Government (Scotland) Bill be considered before all other Lords Amendments to that Bill.
I think that it is for the convenience of the House that the amendments which raise the main structural issues in the reform of local government be considered first, because other matters on which Lords amendments touched could be affected by decisions taken on the main structural amendments proposed by the other place. I believe that it would be for the convenience of the whole House to consider those amendments first and then take the other amendments in the order in which they come in the Bill.

Mr. Ross: When the Secretary of State rose unthinkingly to make a barbed comment about the Opposition when you had called him for another purpose, Mr. Speaker, he gave vent to a defence of the Government's incompetence that sounded very strange.
The right hon. Gentleman is asking us for co-operation to take the amendments in a particular order. The same thing


happened in Committee. There was no objection. He knows quite well that all through the Committee stage there was co-operation on timing and everything else. We sat as often and for as long as he wanted. I do not remember one occasion on which he had to move a closure to curtail a debate. To be told at this stage that all his bungling and incompetence are to be overlooked, and that people are to think that we took up too much time, is more than a bit much.
The right hon. Gentleman has not done his reputation great credit so far by his handling of the Bill, and he started pretty badly today. But despite what the right hon. Gentleman says, we shall give him co-operation on the order in which he wishes the amendments to be taken.

Mr. Peter Doig: I have the greatest difficulty in agreeing to the motion. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Siliars) said that our proceedings would be difficult for anyone who did not serve on the Committee and who knew nothing about the Bill. I served on the Committee throughout, and yet I have the greatest difficulty. The only Lords amendment that seems to affect my area is No. 45, which refers to Clause 147. I looked at the Bill as it was when we discussed it in Committee and found that Clause 147 in that Bill had nothing to do with the amendment. Therefore, I went to the Vote Office only 15 minutes ago for a copy of the Bill as it now is, and I could not obtain one.
How on earth can we make head or tail of matters that vitally affect our areas when amendments refer to clauses that do not exist in our copies of the Bill, or do not deal with the subject of those amendments? It is beyond me how we can intelligently look after the interests of our constituents in such circumstances.
I should like the Secretary of State to explain fully what each amendment is all about so that we can follow the proceedings intelligently. It is no use just moving an amendment which says, for example, "in page 88, line 23, at the end insert" certain words, because those words have no connection with what is in the clause we discussed in Committee.
In view of our difficulties—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. We are discussing only the motion moved by the Secretary of State.

Mr. Doig: If I cannot make sense of an amendment that relates to my area, I do not see how anybody else can. We should not be discussing legislation on the basis of guesswork. We should be able to look up the Bill—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think the hon. Gentleman quite understood my point. We are simply on the question that the Lords amendments to Schedule 1 be considered before all the others.

Mr. Doig: That is the very point I am dealing with, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Why should I discuss a part of the Bill that I know nothing about unless the Secretary of State is prepared to explain in detail the previous position, the present position and the change that he is advocating? We cannot follow what is being done on the basis of the information that we have. If we cannot follow it, we cannot agree to the proposed procedure, unless the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to accept that he must explain it in detail.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Sillars: It is very important that the Secretary of State answers some of the points already put to him. I have several of my own which are relevant to my decision whether to agree or disagree with the motion.
Schedule 1 is crucially important to the people of Scotland, because that is where we draw the boundaries for the regions and districts. It is important for us to know whether the Government are to have a free vote on Schedule 1, because the Opposition are to have a free vote. If the Government are not to have a free vote, I should be opposed to taking Schedule 1 first. If that were the position, it would be better to take Schedule 1 last.
That would mean that the hon. Members who would stay here and argue the matter through the night would be those hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies. The Government would then be in a position to honour their election manifesto, which recognised that Scotland has become increasingly impatient with


decisions made in London which would be better taken in Scotland. I know that we cannot all get on the train to Edinburgh, but by taking Schedule 1 last we could transfer the House into a forum of Scottish opinion and Scottish hon. Members would be able to consider local government boundaries.
If the Secretary of State says that there is to be a free vote for Government hon. Members, and as the Opposition are not to whip, let there be freedom of expression on boundaries. As most of the Government supporters come from England and Wales, and some from Northern Ireland, they would be unlikely to take part in a Division. We require the Secretary of State to say whether the Government are to whip. If the Government are to do so, Schedule 1 should be taken at the back end of today's proceedings.

Mr. Edward Taylor: I make a strong plea to the House to support my right hon. Friend's proposal. If the House does not do so, the only alternative will be to consider Lords Amendment No. 1. That amendment suggests that we should put certain words after the word "Glasgow". I suggest that unless we consider Schedule 1 first, many of my colleagues, and myself, will not have the slightest idea where and what Glasgow actually is.

Mr. John Smith: I have a simple but important matter to put to the Secretary of State, which I hope that he will deal with when he replies. In the Government's proposals which are contained in Amendment (h) it appears—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not on a specific amendment now.

Mr. Smith: Although the matter which I am raising may not have become clear, I think that it will become clear if I continue. I believe that I am in order in saying that I should agree to this motion only if we receive an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that we shall have separate votes on district matters. It seems that the Government have put the whole thing into one package. The Government have decided rather late in the day—in fact, in another place—to bring forward different

proposals. They are contained in Amendment (h). It may be that some hon. Members favour one part, other parts or no parts. However, the whole thing appears to have been put into one package. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will make it clear that these matters will be considered separately.

Mr. Baxter: I wish to draw attention to the difficulty in which I find myself. I had discussions with some legal people on Friday to see whether it would be in order to put down an amendment to exclude Kilsyth and Cumbernauld from the Strathclyde region. I am pointing out the difficulties which I experienced when considering whether Kilsyth and Cumbernauld should be taken out of the Strathclyde region and put into the Central region. I am advised by the Clerk with whom I discussed the matter that it would not be in order to do so.
Nevertheless, I believe that because of the fundamental changes which are being brought about in the Strathclyde region by virtue of the Lords amendments, if we should carry them today or even support the Government amendments, there is a complete alteration in the set-up. In view of the Lords amendments and Government amendments it would probably be in the interests of the best local government administration—and that is by what we should be motivated—that the desires of Kilsyth and the desires of Cumbernauld should be considered and that those areas should be transferred into the Central region. I should have liked an opportunity to express that point of view.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman might have an opportunity to do so later.

Mr. Baxter: But I have not put an amendment down to that effect.

Mr. William Small: My difficulty is in reading prosaic language. We constructed a jetliner in the Lower House. There was then a bit of hi-jacking in another place. I want to know the degree of hi-jacking with which I am now dealing. Are we dealing with the Greater Glasgow area? What is it that I am dealing with in the schedule in terms of the Lords amendments?

Mr. Harry Gourlay: I suggest that the House proceed with the business before it. According to the amendments before the House it will be possible to have more than 40 debates. I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and I suggest that we proceed according to the suggestion of the Secretary of State.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) suggested that there should be a free vote for the Opposition as that would mean that only Scottish hon. Members would be left in the middle of the night to deal with the matter. However, if that were so there would not be a quorum and the Bill would not proceed. If the Secretary of State prefers to proceed now and to use his English hordes to impose his will upon the people of Scotland, that is a matter for the people of Scotland to judge at the oppropriate time. In the meanwhile, I suggest that we proceed with the debate.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for proposing that Schedule 1 should be taken first. If he had not proposed doing so Opposition hon. Members would now be complaining bitterly that Schedule 1 was not to be taken at the beginning of the proceedings. It must make sense to take Schedule 1 first because the schedule deals with the regional and district groupings of authorities in Scotland. It is those matters which will probably concern us most today.

Mr. Sillars: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. MacArthur: No. Let us get on with these matters now and come to a decision one way or the other. The House will find that most of the other amendments will fall into place once Schedule 1 has been dealt with. It is a sensible course to take Schedule 1 first. I am sorry that some Opposition hon. Members have taken the stand of perpetual and professional opposition. That is a posture which they adopted throughout the earlier stages of the Bill.

Mr. David Steel: I agree that on balance it is probably sensible to take Schedule 1 first. However, has the Secretary of

State considered the alternative of inviting the House to accept a motion which would recommit the Bill to the next Session of Parliament?

Mr. Gordon Campbell: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's point is "No". The Government made it clear that they felt that the reorganisation should be carried out. It should be possible, even for a Bill of this size, to be taken in one Session of Parliament. We warned Opposition hon. Members as the months went past that we were leaving a lot to be dealt with at the end of this Session. We gave them that warning in Committee. Further, to postpone the matter until the next Session would mean that we would fall behind with this important reorganisation. England and Wales are already a year ahead of Scotland.
I can help the hon. Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small). The proposals for the Strathclyde region and the peripheral areas of Glasgow are structural issues which we are due to consider today. The other matters which have been raised are mainly procedural matters which do not affect the order in which we should take the amendments. I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Gourlay) when he advised the House that we should proceed now.

Mr. George Lawson: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the right hon. Gentleman has sat down.

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. John Smith) asked whether there would be one vote. He asked whether that one vote would include the other amendments or whether there would be separate votes for the separate questions coming within the schedule.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I will reply with the leave of the House. That must be a matter for the Chair. The matter to which the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. John Smith) referred was one amendment concerning one of the peripheral areas of Glasgow. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It was "(h)". Hon. Members can read this as they wish, but


as I understand it, the amendments have to be voted on individually. Where there is to be a Division, there can be individual Divisions on amendments. But the question of amendments to amendments is clearly a question for the Chair.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,
That the Lords Amendments to Schedule 1 to the Local Government (Scotland) Bill be considered before all other Lords Amendments to that Bill.

Schedule 1

NEW LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREAS

Lords Amendment: No. 71, in page 147, line 1, at end insert:


"Greater Glasgow
The county of the city of Glasgow.



In the county of Dunbarton—the burghs of Bearsden, Clydebank, Milngavie; the district of Old Kilpatrick (except the electoral divisions of Bowling, Dunbarton).



In the county of Lanark—the burgh of Rutherglen; in the Eighth district the electoral divisions of Bankhead, Cambuslang Central, Cambuslang North, Hallside, Rutherglen, and those parts of Cambuslang South and Carmunnock electoral divisions lying outwith the designated area of East Kilbride New Town; in the Ninth district, the electoral divisions of Baillieston, Garrowhill, Mount Vernon and Carmyle, Springboig.



In the county of Renfrew—the First district.


Lanarkshire
In the county of Dunbarton—the burghs of Cumbernauld, Kirkintilloch; the district of Kirkintilloch and Cumbernauld.



The county of Lanark (except the burgh of Rutherglen; in the Eighth district, the electoral divisions of Bankhead, Cambuslang Central, Cambuslang North, Hallside, Rutherglen, and those parts of Cambuslang South and Carmunnock electoral divisions lying outwith the designated area of East Kilbride New Town; in the Ninth district, the electoral divisions of Baillieston, Garrowhill, Mount Vernon and Carmyle, Springboig).



In the county of Stirling—the burgh of Kilsyth; the Western No. 3 district; the electoral divisions of Kilsyth East, Kilsyth West.

Argyll and Clyde
The county of Argyll (except the district of Ardnamurchan; the electoral divisions of Ballachulish, Kinlochleven).



The county of Bute (except the burgh of Millport; the districts of Arran, Cumbrae).



In the county of Dunbarton—the burghs of Dumbarton, Cove and Kilcreggan, Helensburgh; the districts of Helensburgh, Vale of Leven; the electoral divisions of Bowling, Dunbarton.



The county of Renfrew (except the First district).


Ayrshire and Arran
The county of Ayr.


In the county of Bute—the burgh of Millport; the districts of Arran, Cumbrae."

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if we were to take, with this amendment, Lords Amendment No. 72, in page 147, leave out lines 2 to 12, and Lords Amendment No. 9, in page 32, leave out lines 6 to 23 and insert:
(11) In accordance with such directions as the Secretary of State may give, the regional councils of Greater Glasgow, Lanarkshire, Argyll and Clyde and Aryshire and Arran, shall combine or have joint consultations in regard to the discharge of any of their functions.
They deal with the same subject.

Mr. Ross: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have just ruled that we shall take amendments to Schedule 1 before anything else. As Lords Amendment No. 9 has nothing to do with the schedule but relates to page 32 of the Bill I trust that by our decision, having ruled out the matter, we shall be able to vote on that amendment also.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: My suggestion was that Lords Amendment No. 9 be discussed with the other two amendments as it is closely related to them. But if there were to be a Division upon it, that would be taken soon afterwards.
This is ground over which we in the House have been many times. Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will have been considering this matter for more than four years now, in various groups and by themselves. They


will have been considering the whole question whether the area known as Strathclyde should be one region or whether it should be divided into four, which is now the proposal of the other place.
The main arguments which have been advanced in another place come to this: that with four separate regions, united by joint arrangements ad hoc for such functions as the Secretary of State may direct, it is possible to meet all the major needs for the planning and development of Strathclyde as a whole while retaining the advantage of rather smaller authorities for the personal services.
We in this House have considered various possibilities which would be better for the personal services, in the opinions of some hon. Members, but in the end we in this House reached the same conclusion that the Wheatley Commission reached unanimously, that Strathclyde should be one region.
The proposition now advanced by the House of Lords, although in new form, in substance goes over the ground which this House has covered, both in Committee and on Report. In Committee we rejected by a large majority an amendment which would have created an indirectly elected Strathclyde metropolitan authority. One of the main considerations there was that such an authority would have been little more than a joint committee of the four constituent regions and, therefore, an ineffective instrument for determining policies for Strathclyde as a whole.
On Report, when an amendment was considered to provide for a different form of metropolitan authority for Strathclyde, the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said that this
should be an elected tier to retain the benefits of the principles of wider planning seen by the members of the Committee as well as Wheatley to be essential."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th June, 1973; Vol. 858, c. 168.]
Therefore, we on both sides of the House were agreed on the need for an elected authority for Strathclyde, and efforts were made in Committee and on the Floor of the House in a determined attempt to find an alternative which would be better than the alternative put forward by the Wheatley Commission. We concluded that we could not find a better alternative or one that did not have major disadvantages. In another

place it may have been felt that joint arrangements or joint consultation would have been good enough; but this House clearly concluded—the Government agree on this—that the likelihood of a joint committee of this kind reaching agreement and getting things done was not very great.
The promoter of the amendment in another place, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, put it forward on a tentative basis saying that it would give this House yet another opportunity of looking at this matter again. He did not have greater confidence in his amendment because he provided the built-in means of undoing it as simply and as quickly as possible. He has given the Secretary of State the power, by simple direction and without consultation or inquiry of any sort, to require the four regions into which he proposes to split Strathclyde to consult or combine for the discharge of any of their functions. Indeed, I think that the power would enable the Secretary of State to direct them to combine for all their functions if he thought fit. This is clearly quite unprecedented as a power for a Minister to use without any check on how it should be operated.

Mr. Bruce Millan: Oh.

Mr. Campbell: This is a new approach. It is not something which was included in any of the variations which we considered in this House. It has often been argued that all the strategic planning decisions for Strathclyde will be taken by the central Government anyhow. But whenever that argument is raised, Hunterston is mentioned. I cannot, however, accept Hunterston as being an example of anything, because it is unique. It is a site of national importance, whatever happens to it. The likelihood of there being another place of that kind in the area is small. The central Government have clearly become engaged in the Hunterston issue, and it would have been bound to go to central Government anyway.

Mr. Sillars: I am sure that the Secretary of State agrees that Hunterston is a part of the Ocean Span concept. Therefore, it is not simply Hunterston about which we are talking but a strategic planning concept that runs right across Scotland from west to east. At the end


of the day, will not the right hon. Gentleman or the then Secretary of State be the person making the final decision?

Mr. Campbell: What the hon. Gentleman has said is not out of line with what I was saying, that is, that Hunterston is a key area the planning of which needs to be on a national scale. Therefore, it cannot be an example. There are unlikely to be other places of that kind cropping up in the Strathclyde region. It is unique.
There have been other cases of planning permission being sought. There was the Murco case, and others from the past, which did not involve sites of this kind.
I do not expect that every hon. Member will necessarily agree with what I am saying, but I must make it clear that in the Government's view Hunterston is not an example of an ordinary planning permission case. It is unique. We believe that the majority of applications for planning permission will normally be dealt with by the planning authority for the region. That will mean that considerations affecting the whole estuary and valley of the Clyde would be taken into account by the single planning authority. Considering the four regions which are proposed, and given the normal modern catchment areas for travel to work, recreation and shopping, there is little prospect that the four regions now delineated in the Bill would be anything like self-contained in their provision of housing, transport and roads, recreational space and shopping, and this is without taking into account the amount of guided redistribution of population which will have to take place if congestion is to be relieved in those cases within the Strathclyde region where it exists. Given Strathclyde as one region, there will be a local authority body interested in seeing these problems as a whole and balancing one local interest against another. Given the split now proposed by another place, there must be an outside authority regularly to force one or other of the four regions in the Strathclyde area to take account of some of the requirements of another of the regions in the general public interest.
This is not simply a matter of putting appropriate patches of colour on a map or drafting high-sounding policy

statements. It is a question of how the regions and districts spend their money, and problems of the kind I have been describing can be expected materially to affect how, where and when money is spent in the Strathclyde region.

Mr. David Lambie: The right hon. Gentleman has put a strong case in support of the argument that the four regions as proposed in the Lords amendment could not be viable. They would be competing against each other because they would be too small and there would be overlapping. Why does not this apply to Fife? Surely there is greater overlapping in Fife, yet the Government have accepted that Fife shall be a region on its own.

Mr. Campbell: That is not what I told the House. I said that the four regions would be vying with each other. I did not say that they would not he viable. I said that they would be conflicting with each other's interests and there would have to be a body, which is recognised in these amendments in the way I mentioned, a kind of joint committee—an unsatisfactory one in the Government's view—which reconciled the major public interests over the area of Strathclyde.
Because the matters I have described will be delineated in the first instance in regional reports and structure plans, and because these have to be submitted for my approval, it may be argued that Government intervention on these matters is unaffected by the split of Strathclyde. But there is a world of difference between a local authority and central Government dialogue based on proposals initiated by the local authority and prepared within the background of national policy and a dialogue between central and local government based on instructions to the local authority that its plans must contain certain specific provisions which the local authority would otherwise certainly not have included. The second kind of dialogue can never be completely eliminated. But I would hope that, if the Strathclyde region is retained, it will be comparatively rare. I need hardly remind the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and, particularly the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon), of the time which was devoted during the last


administration to ministerial interventions in the dialogue about land use and population movements in this area.
The Government have spent more than four years considering this matter, since the Wheatley Commission made its recommendations. We were struck by the size suggested by the Wheatley Commission and have studied the various possibilities overcoming that. In this House alternatives have been considered and it was interesting that those considered retained the size. What we looked at were alternative possibilities for organisation and structure, the three-tier system being one.
However, this House, after long debate and consideration of such alternatives, decided that the one region for Strathclyde was the best of the possibilities considered. The mover of the amendment in the other place, the noble Lord Hughes, making a speech in the first debate in the House of Lords on 23rd March 1971 after going into Opposition, said that had the Labour Government continued in office they would have provided proposals much along the lines being put forward by this Government for the Strathclyde region.
I recognise with the noble Lord Hughes, and have described to the House, how many of us have been looking closely, and investigating in depth, the possibility of alternatives. But Lord Hughes accepted at the beginning—and during the time he was Minister of State in the then Government he was, I understand, responsible for the first round of negotiations and consultations with the local authorities—that a Labour Government would have proposed similar suggestions in following the Wheatley Commission on this.
Now, at what I can only describe as the twelfth hour, at the very end of our consideration of the Bill in this Session, this amendment has been put forward. I know that it is done with the best of intentions, and to give the House another opportunity of looking at this important subject, but I believe that the considerations which moved us in the House on earlier occasion to take the decisions we took are unaltered, and I do not think that there are any arguments to make us accept the amendment.
There are many other matters of revision which the House of Lords is putting

to us today in respect of bringing the Bill up to date and making small changes, on which we on this side will be glad to commend the amendments to the House. But I do not believe that at this twelfth hour it would be wise for the House of Commons to accept this one, which is a change of massive proportions on a matter which we have considered many times, and most carefully, in the House.

Mr. Millan: I agree with the Lords amendments and disagree with what the Secretary of State has just said. I do not propose to speak at length because the matters have already been exhaustively discussed in this House.
It has been increasingly recognised that the Wheatley Commission, in supporting this structure for the West of Scotland, subordinated everything else to planning considerations. The Secretary of State has rather given the impression that those of us who were worried about the impact of a huge region such as Strathclyde on other local authority services have not been aware of the strategic planning considerations. That is certainly not so. I am sceptical about some of the arguments on planning grounds for a region the size of Strathclyde, but I claim no special expertise in strategic planning, and I have been willing to defer to the view of those experienced in this field that something like the size of the Strathclyde region was necessary for strategic planning purposes.
But what I am equally clear about is that what is suggested now for Strathclyde, or a region of this sort, is completely unsatisfactory and unsuitable from the point of view of education and social work, and from the point of view of a number of other local authority services as well—for example, police and fire services.
What many of us have tried to do—this is an important point to make for the local authorities in the West of Scotland which have been against Strathclyde—has been to maintain a structure which would satisfy the planning considerations but would also produce an effective structure for education, social work and the rest.
We have made various attempts to that end. It was first moved in Committee that there should be a three-tier structure, with the top structure for the whole of Strathclyde dealing with planning and


associated services on the basis of indirect election. Incidentally, that original suggestion had been put up because the arguments up to that point had been that to have direct elections in three tiers was too complicated for the ordinary Scottish elector to understand—a view which I do not accept for one minute. But, in deference to that point of view, the local authorities in the area—with the exception of my own local authority of Glasgow, which has throughout been in favour of the Strathclyde region as it stands—and hon. Members in this House were willing to have indirect election, but, of course, elected members as members of the top-tier authority.
That, predictably, was turned down simply on the ground that it was indirect election. When we came back to Report in the House, a three-tier system providing for election at every level was introduced. That was turned down, again predictably, on a reversion to the original argument, that having three elections was too difficult for the electors to understand.
I do not accept any of those propositions. But it is not for those who have been the proponents of the Strathclyde region to try to dissect, in the way that the Secretary of State, quite ineffectively, dissected, Amendment No. 9 as being inferior to what was produced in Committee and on Report when earlier attempts to achieve a compromise and a solution which would satisfy all considerations were rejected by the Government.
I take the view that what has been proposed in another place is inferior to what was proposed in Committee and on Report in the House of Commons, when we wanted to have a three-tier system at every point. Nevertheless, I feel strongly that what we shall do in Strathclyde is wrong for the West of Scotland. The planning considerations, however important they are, have been given an importance well beyond what they should have been. But I would still be happy to support the House of Lords amendment.
Admittedly the provisions for the combinations of directions by the Secretary of State are not as adequate as the propositions which were originally made in Com-

mittee or on Report in the House of Commons. Nevertheless, with co-operation in the area, they would give the opportunity to provide a structure for planning in the whole of the West of Scotland which I feel could adequately deal with the planning problems involved.
Incidentally, what the Secretary of State said about Hunterston was completely unconvincing. We know that many other planning applications whose impact is considerably less than that of Hunterston are already brought to the Scottish Office now, such as applications for hypermarkets which are not unique and which do not have the national significance of Hunterston. Unfortunately, those who have pressed the Strathclyde region so vigorously will find this out to their cost when the region is established. We think that the important planning considerations will devolve on central Government, despite the operation of the Strathclyde region.
What is proposed in the House of Lords amendment—inadequate as it may be in comparison with other amendments which were turned down—is a better solution to Strathclyde than what the Government are proposing. For that reason, I support the amendment.

Mr. John Smith: I hope that in the course of the debate Members on both sides of the House will support Strathclyde and argue the case for it. However, I do not, and I should like briefly to state my reasons for thinking that the Lords amendment is preferable to the Government's proposals. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) said, a number of variations were tried by those who feared the complications of Strathclyde in an attempt to reach agreement in the House on an alternative solution. Each time the attempt has been made, it has been defeated.
The important thing at this stage of our consideration—whether it be the twelfth hour, the eleventh hour or whenever—is to look as carefully as we can at what we are doing. What we are doing is very important. The decisions in the Bill taken by Parliament will have to be lived with for a very long time.
I was interested that the Secretary of State prayed in aid the views of the House and implied that when the House


had come to a firm decision about the region it was undesirable to listen too much to Lords amendments. I hope that he will remember that when he comes to some of the district amendments that he will be proposing.
The principal reason many of us have viewed with scepticism the Strathclyde proposal has been the difficulty of seeing how it would work in respect of some of the important local government services and how it would work in terms of having democratic control in the local authority. This is something that one tends to lose sight of when considering concepts such as strategic economic planning.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Craigton, I have some difficulty in grasping what is meant by strategic economic planning. So far as I can see, we are giving no extra powers to the new local authorities that will be set up under the Bill. I do not know that there will be any fundamental change in the relationship between central Government and local government as a result of the new framework. The same problems will remain, and the same resources will remain to deal with them.
Some people have been attracted by the notion that Strathclyde is, as it were, a new beginning, a new start, a fresh broom for the West of Scotland—a concept that is attractive to us all—but they ought to stop to consider whether any more resources will be available and whether the problems will be any less. Particularly in education and social work, I do not think there will be any radical change. All that we are doing is putting a number of local authorities together and giving them another name. We are not providing any new resources. We are not even giving a proper salary to the councillors to operate the new system.
I am a little sceptical about this new start. Of course, if we are lumbered with it we shall have to make the best of it, but there is still an opportunity to do something to stop it.
One of the curious things about this notion of strategic economic planning is that it seems to apply only to the West of Scotland. The central belt of Scotland is the heart of our industrial structure. It is cut across by three different regions, but strategic economic planning seems to

stop half way through the village of Harthill where the Strathclyde boundary ends. There is every need for cooperation between the Central, Lothian, Fife and Strathclyde Regions for the purpose of strategic economic planning. Somehow that is possible in the mind of the Government, but it will be impossible for four similar authorities in the west of Scotland to agree to come together in order to fashion sensible strategic economic planning.
The central Government will continue to have an important role to play in economic development. Although there is much talk these days about local authorities being involved in economic development, their prinicipal responsibility is not for economic development. That is the responsibility of central Government. Whatever the structure, I hope that it will remain a primary responsibility of central Government. I am not in favour of the central Government giving up too much of their power over economic development to local authorities, and there will not be much of that power, whichever Government are operating this structure.
It is curious that some committees are meeting in Strathclyde to assemble the necessary information and work out plans and schemes for management structures within the new Strathclyde Region, while at the same time others are meeting to find ways of devolving to the areas responsibility for all the decisions that will affect individuals. There is a double process going on, with the people serving on different committees trying to work in different directions.
From the administrative point of view it is possible to deal with education and social work by devolving some of the decisions to smaller units, but from a democratic point of view I do not think that it is so easy to keep control of the decisions. It is easy to take on a responsibility and then hand it out to a subarea director of education or social work to deal with it, but the committee, the politicians, and the democrats at the centre will lose control because they will be at the centre and will not know what the minor officials in the area are doing. If administrative devolution is not followed by political and democratic devolution, we shall run into difficulty. Ordinary citizens may find, when they complain


about a decision, or ask that a different decision be taken, that they meet an official face and will not be able to relate that official face to a democratically elected politician. That is one of the grave difficulties that will exist in the Strathclyde Region.
It is not true to say that those who oppose the amendment are against local government reform. What is proposed as an alternative is a considerable local government reform, and one which faces one of the main difficulties that we have been under since 1929—the distinction between burghs and counties. Ever since the 1929 Act there has been tension in the country, particularly between the large burghs and the county councils. The split of functions between the two has not worked as well as it should have done. That needed to be tackled in any local government reform.
The Lords amendments face up to that situation. Instead of counties and burghs, we should have united units taking over the principal functions of local government. We should then get rid of one of the main problems. It would mean that instead of the myriad of local authorities in the West of Scotland, there would be only four important local authorities. As the region is the important factor in this structure—it is more important than districts—the important decision is whether we have one or four.
We must remember, too, that the rest of Scotland, the upper half, has eight. We have the odd situation of having one local authority for half of Scotland, and eight for the rest of the country. That cannot be right. There is an obvious imbalance there. It is proposed that there should be four authorities for the West of Scotland, making a total of 12 for the country—12 viable, manageable units responsive to democratic control, but large enough to carry out the important local government functions laid down. I believe that that would provide a much more balanced structure.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: Surely, when the hon. Gentleman says that there are eight regions—I believe that is what he said—for the rest of Scotland and one for Strathclyde, he is leaving out of account the areas involved. I refer not to population but to

area. In Strathclyde, part of the population lives in a comparatively small area.

Mr. Smith: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman makes that point, because Strathclyde covers a considerable area as well as having a large population. Strathclyde covers an area of 5,200 sq. miles, in addition to having a population of 2½ million. Therefore, from both points of view the proposal is objectionable.
If the hon. Gentleman studies the areas, he will realise that even the subdivided areas proposed in the Lords amendments are still much larger than many of the regions which the Government themselves proposed and carried through. The hon. Gentleman cannot put that argument forward as a defence.
Before we take this important decision tonight, I should like some of those who have been urging the adoption of the Strathclyde suggestion to tell us what the great benefits will be for the West of Scotland. Throughout Committee and Report, in our consideration of the Bill, hon. Members who have objected to Strathclyde and have been trying to find alternatives have been arguing their case in the face of silence.
I hope that tonight that silence will be broken and that hon. Members will tell us why Strathclyde is so important, and why that structure should be set up. I am sure that the Opposition will not try to defeat a decision of the House once it has been taken. If we are lumbered with it, we shall have to make it work as well as we can. But here is Parliament's opportunity, its last opportunity, to vote against the Strathclyde proposal. I hope that Parliament will reject it.

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. John Smith) has strongly pressed that someone should say something in support of the Strathclyde Region. I had no great intention of speaking, but I could not allow my hon. Friend's challenge to pass without reply.
I welcome the Government's decision to throw out the Lords amendments relating to this proposal. I am not so happy about certain other decisions, but I welcome this one. I am ready to stand up for Strathclyde anywhere and at any time. I am happy to take up the subject on the arguments usually taken as unanswerable. I


refer to the arguments about democracy, for instance, or education, or social work. That last case is usually referred to as being so weak that it is merely mentioned in passing, and we focus our attention on planning.
On the subject of democracy, my hon. Friend referred to education. I shall speak more fully on education in a moment. But my hon. Friend suggested that our education set-up is run in such a way that people in the localities feel that they have a real say in what is happening, that there is a much more sensitive type of democracy operating there than would be possible if we were operating in the larger region.
My hon. Friend might recall what normally happens when an education authority takes a decision to zone certain schools. That happens in all our areas. We have all come under fire on this, although it is a local government question, and we all know the indignation which parents can feel and express about it. In many cases, their protests seldom make any headway. In my own area, in two recent cases of zoning, the people who were against the decision did not feel that they had much of a say. They did not feel that they were consulted in any way which gave them an opportunity to affect a decision which had been taken.
I am not trying to judge the rightness or wrongness of a particular decision on zoning. I am arguing that local people feel that their voices count for little, or not at all, when it is a matter of zoning. For example, on the question of democracy—

5.15 p.m.

Mr. John Smith: It is very difficult to argue about particular cases, but does my hon. Friend recall that in Committee the Secretary of State, when pressed to define what would be devolved to officials, gave zoning of schools as one example, feeling it better that it should be decided by officials rather than by democratically elected councils accountable to the people?

Mr. Lawson: I take it that the Strathclyde Region will itself decide how this will be done. It is a matter that will be decided by the elected authority.

Mr. Ross: The Secretary of State suggested that there would be a scheme. We have not seen a scheme. But, when we asked for an example, he said that the kind of matter to be decided locally by the officials would be zoning of schools. The only thing we do know is that a local official will decide this.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Hon. Members are purporting to quote me. I was asked for some examples of the sort of matters that might be delegated by the new council, if it wished to do so. I gave a list, one item of which was the zoning of schools.

Mr. Lawson: The Secretary of State has, as we know, hazarded an explanation. I hope that the regional authority will have a large voice and will itself decide on a matter of this kind. Here is a matter that affects people intimately. Many people with whom I have been concerned felt that, so far as democracy went, it did not go very far.
Let us take the wider question of democracy. Are my hon. Friends suggesting that local government democracy, whether in a district, a small or a large burgh, or a county council, has been more democratic than central Government democracy?
Are my hon. Friends telling me that they are less easily reached by their constituents, that they are less able Ito respond to the problems of their constituents than even the district councillor is? It has not been my experience.
I represent a constituency that is as sound as any in its democratic ideas and I am not prepared to say that local councillors in my area are more accessible than I am. I hope that that is the case with any of my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen opposite. I disagree that a small authority is necessarily more democratic. It is sometimes more difficult to reach a local official than it is to reach a central Government official.
It is a Liberal idea that we solve the problems of democracy, the ever-growing centralisation of power in a modern State, by breaking it up. In so far as these problems can be solved, they are solved by improving representative institutions. The more we can improve Parliament, the more effectively can the Government be controlled. The more the effectiveness of


councillors can be improved in regional and district areas, the more effectively democracy will function.
It is not a question of size but rather a question of how effective the representative member or members happen to be. A small village of 200 or 300 people can be virtually without democracy. That can apply to counties, as anyone who comes from a large burgh or county council area will be aware. There can be nearly civil war—an exaggerated term—but there has been dispute and conflict over years between the representatives of the large burghs and those of county councils. I question the value to democracy if more authorities result in more conflicts.
What is proposed here is to set up four authorities of comparable size covering virtually the same river valley area, with a closely knit economy. These authorities of similar size and occasionally conflicting interests could be put potentially, albeit without intention, at each other's throats.
My hon. Friend asks whether we can have a planning example where there might be conflict. Recently, Lanarkshire County Council sought to attract British Leyland to come to a part of Lanarkshire where it thinks—and I agree—that it has an excellent site. Lanarkshire has done a first-rate job in its effort to attract British Leyland. But if we had the four suggested authorities in that area, it might be difficult or impossible for those four authorities to agree that it should be the Lanarkshire site. It might be considered that it should be a site in Renfrewshire. There is even a dispute in Lanarkshire, because people who come from the Stonehouse area want it to be there. But the majority of representatives from Lanarkshire have agreed that the site chosen by Lanarkshire County Council is excellent and on this basis will go ahead.
I put the point that for democracy it is a matter not of size but of the nature of the representative institution and the quality of the representatives. This is the question to which we are seeking to find an answer in the matter of democracy.
Much has been said about social work, and hon. Members may recall that I had

a lot to argue on that when the social work Bill first came before the House. It may be that I made a contribution towards having social work left with the large burghs. An important point I made then was that social work and housing were part and parcel of the same kind of service. It appeared to me and others that it was a mistake to separate social work and housing. Separate housing and social work authorities would create difficulties, with, possibly, the housing authority shunting its problems to the social work department, and the like.
As I understand the Bill with which we are here concerned—this is not now in dispute—housing is a district authority function. The principal argument with which I was concerned some years ago was to keep these two things together. They are not to be kept together. Housing is separate from social work, whatever we do. If regions are divided up and Strathclyde is given social work, it is separate from housing. It is as well to have it on the basis of a single region as on four regions in this connection so long as it is separate from housing.

Mr. James Dempsey: Does my hon. Friend recall that the campaign which was launched in Lanarkshire to bring the social work service to the burghs was launched by Motherwell and Wishaw town council, and held in the council chamber? I think I am right in saying that my hon. Friend supported that campaign wholeheartedly.

Mr. Lawson: I said earlier that there could be no local authority that had more to commend it than the joint burgh of Motherwell and Wishaw. I repeat that. Certainly Motherwell and Wishaw saw the argument which was principally as I described it—the importance of the two services going together—and that if these services were separated there could be a lot of trouble. The services are to be separated. Social work is to be separated from housing. There can be no disadvantage in social work being administered by a county such as Lanark, or a larger county. There can be no advantage in its being with the total region.

Mr. Millan: My hon. Friend's recollection of what happened about the question of social work is not accurate. The


reason for keeping social work in the burghs has little to do with the housing question. The point was that the large burghs were already health and welfare authorities and it seemed unsatisfactory therefore to take certain functions away from them when we knew there was to be local government reform, thus providing an opportunity to reconsider the whole question of social work. That is the accurate story of what happened.

Mr. Lawson: I am talking of the approach that I took to the argument. Perhaps my arguments counted for nothing at the time. Nobody can say that I claim they did. I merely made a contribution on that occasion. I maintained that difficulties would arise if social work were separated from housing. They are now being dealt with separately, therefore social work could just as well be dealt with on a regional basis.
Let me take this matter a little further. There is what is called social security. A lot of people regularly go to the social security office and officers from the Department of Social Security go to houses to make inquiries. I often hear commendable reports of these officers. Sometimes one hears criticism, but more often one hears, "She was a very nice lady"—or perhaps lad—"who told me all about it". There is no reason why such officers cannot function as sensitively in the interests of people on a wider basis. It is not a question of size but of the kind of people who handle the inquiries and the type of facilities with which they are equipped.
One of the problems which has occurred in the children's panels—my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) will be aware of it—is that it is extremely difficult to fulfil their obligations because of the lack of facilities. Time after time it has been shown that, because of the size of the authority, they are unable to obtain the necessary facilities.
That is only part of my argument. My final point deals with education, which seems to be the all-important argument. I have made only one comment concerning the democratic control of education. The regions with which we are concerned contain some of the most difficult education problems in Scotland. I do not agree that if we take the most difficult areas

in Scotland and bring them into one we shall compound all the difficulties. It may be that a single region can handle the education problems that confront that part of Scotland more effectively than smaller authorities have been able to do and more effectively than four authorities.
I do not think we can be happy about how the education problems have been handled in the West of Scotland by whichever authority it happens to be. I am not bragging about how effectively the Lanarkshire education authority has handled its specific problems. I doubt whether others from that part of Scotland will argue that, because everything is excellent and shows signs of becoming more so in those areas, one dare not disturb it by setting up a single regional authority.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Alexander Wilson: Surely my hon. Friend must agree that most of the problems besetting the Lanarkshire education authority arise from the cutting back of expenditure by central Government? It is not fair to castigate the Lanarkshire education authority which would willingly give better facilities, even under this Government.

Mr. Lawson: I was not aware that I was castigating. If one ventures a suggestion of doubt, it is immediately taken that one is castigating. I am not castigating Lanarkshire, but I am not bragging about Lanarkshire. I am not saying that in Lanarkshire there is something that must not be disturbed and that any change is bound to worsen the situation. I was trying to express a hope that perhaps a change will be of substantial benefit.
One of the difficulties regarding education—perhaps the difficulty—is that of teachers. There is an absolute shortage and a maldistribution of teachers. The absolute shortage we might not be able to do much about. The absolute shortage, we are told, is not so great taking Scotland as a whole. However, there is clearly a considerable maldistribution of teachers within each education authority area. The maldistribution is apparently such that the education authorities cannot do much about it. Teachers may prefer to teach in one area rather than another. They may prefer to teach in one education authority's area rather than another.
Suppose Glasgow—I cite Glasgow in case I am challenged about Lanarkshire—said to some of its teachers that it would like them to go out to Easterhouse. I have no doubt that many excellent teachers are ready to go and do readily go out to Easterhouse. I cite Easterhouse as an example where there may be difficulties. Teachers preferring not to go to Easterhouse might well cross the border into Dunbartonshire, where a new education authority would be extremely happy to welcome them.
The important point is that with the present set-up each education authority is delighted to encourage into its area all the teachers it can get, even at the expense of other education authorities. One cannot expect one authority to be much concerned about another. I am suggesting that it might be easier for the single authority which is responsible for half the schoolchildren of Scotland to handle the problem of the maldistribution of teachers more effectively than the problem has been handled under the separate county council and city authorities up to the present. I do not see this as being an argument against the regions coming together, but possibly as a powerful argument for establishing a single region.
On the basis of the argument of education, local democracy and social work and studying them all—I should have liked to have spent more time and gone into them more closely—I come down in support of keeping Strathclyde as Strathclyde was.

Sir Myer Galpern: I find myself in a unique position this afternoon. Having been Chairman of the Standing Committee I had to decide whether I ought to participate in the debate. As hon. and right hon. Members know, it is the practice for the Chairman in Committee, when he is called upon for a casting vote, to give that vote to the form of the Bill as it left the House on Second Reading. Therefore, recalling what I had to do on the question of the payment of salaries to members, and giving my casting vote on that basis, I feel that I can properly come now on the basis that I would speak for and vote for the Bill as it left the Committee stage in the Commons.
The argument is that Strathclyde as a region will be far too big. We have had one strong supporter of that, arguing for the amendment, in my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) who, in my opinion, is rapidly becoming the Brian Clough of Scottish politics. He made a surprising and what I consider to be a wholly uncalled for and vicious attack upon the calibre of the members elected to Glasgow Corporation to represent the citizens of Glasgow.
I have had experience over a great number of years of being associated with and fully involved in local government in Glasgow, and I strongly resent the wholly unfounded allegations and accusations made against the competence of members who represent the city of Glasgow at the present time. In his allegations and criticisms against the members of Glasgow Corporation, I think that my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire makes a strong argument for having the Strathclyde Region. He says that we have failed to solve our development programme.

Mr. Lambie: Correct.

Sir M. Galpern: He says that we have not solved our housing problems or our education problems.

Mr. Lambie: Correct.

Sir M. Galpern: Is it, therefore, unreasonable to say that the geniuses from Saltcoats and Central Ayrshire should come in to the Strathclyde Region and give us the benefit of their knowledge and expertise in helping to solve our problems?

Mr. Lambie: Correct. That is possibly one of the arguments.

Sir M. Galpern: We have not heard about the great prowess of the people in Central Ayrshire, but we are, nevertheless, prepared to accept my hon. Friend's statement—I take his word for it, he is a good judge—and I am prepared to say, "Come on in and give us a hand". I think that that is a good Socialist principle.
We seem to be losing sight of the fact that we are reforming local government to deal with the next 40, 50 or 60 years—well into the twenty-first century—and


in order to anticipate local government needs we seem to consider that regional functions will remain static. That is the big fallacy of the argument against including the Strathclyde Region or, for that matter, any other region.
Let us consider education and social work. Do we believe that education will remain in its present form for the next 40 or 50 years? When we talk of education today we are wondering how it will fit in to the region as it is today, but surely no one in this House in his senses believes that education will remain in its present form in the next 40 or 50 years.
Residential accommodation is one aspect in which I believe there will be a tremendous advance in the years ahead. Another is in Outward Bound schools such as Glenmore Lodge, particularly with the raising of the school leaving age. Look at Glasgow's position. We send pupils to residential courses at Glenmore Lodge, and we sent children to residential courses at Toward Castle and all over the West of Scotland. As a former convener of our education committee I know that, from the point of view of administration, it would be a far better proposition to have control of the whole area to which we send or, for that matter, any other authority send our children.
I can envisage a tremendous development in the whole concept of residential education. It is something that no authority will be able to avoid. Why is it not better to have the whole area of the Strathclyde Region where we could have the accommodation suitable for the purposes of residential education?
We bring children from France and take them to Glasgow and to many other authorities. We brought a class of school children from Canada recently and put them in one of our West of Scotland schools for a month or two, and we then sent a whole classroom of children over to Canada. Why cannot we do the same thing with children from Oban, bring them into the city and give them closer contact between city, town and country? That is another development. If it is good enough for bringing children from abroad, surely they can be brought from different parts of Scotland, over which one authority will have the sole direction and formulation of plans in that direction.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: With all his knowledge of education—my hon. Friend knows how I respect his views on these matters—surely he is not suggesting that in the Strathclyde Region there would be one central administrative unit covering the whole of that region? Even at the present time, no one is thinking in terms of administering from one centre. One thinks of breaking it up for administration from an everyday viewpoint.

Sir M. Galpern: Yes, one central overriding education authority. Whatever powers it would wish to delegate to local authorities in the various districts would be a matter for it to decide.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The point is that there will be no local authorities to which powers can be delegated. They may be delegated to administrative units, but that is not a matter of democracy or local government.

Sir M. Galpern: All right. But there will be one central authority that will be responsible for all the education work in the region. As my right hon. Friend has indicated, we do not yet know how these functions will work and that is why we must be watchful to see exactly how it all unfolds.
Social work is another sphere in which, as was shown in a recent Select Committee investigating the whole question of probation and its relationship to social work, small units are now out of date. We must have much larger areas and an inter-relationship between probation and social services and all the work that goes on with hospital almoners and so forth. In that sphere, as in education, why not try to project what the future will bring in this most important field of social work in the context of the whole Strathclyde Region as it will be? In all these things, we look to the future and give an opportunity to those in control to formulate their plans according to what we envisage will be the needs of the community.
As I understood my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. John Smith), and as was argued in Committee, there could be a three-tier system, but the difficulty there lay in bamboozling the public with three elections. That in itself was an admission that there should be an overall authority still, which would


be the third tier. There is, at least, a yielding. But even those who are against that plan yield to a certain extent to the fact that there should be some authority which would have the overall consideration regarding certain matters of local government.

Mr. John Smith: My hon. Friend is taking the line that that is a concession. We were trying to be reasonable in trying to meet the strategic planning argument without sacrificing education and social work upon the altar of strategic economic planning. One of the troubles with being a reasonable man is that a compromise is always taken as weakness. I suggest that it is a sign of strength.

Sir M. Galpern: I do not think that. At least in one aspect it is recognised that there should be an overall body. The difference is on whether education and social work should be brought together under the same umbrella.
I hope that we shall consider the matter from that angle. If we find—and as the Foreign Secretary said the other day that he did not know whether he was doing right or wrong when dealing with the supply of arms and the embargo imposed on Israel—that we are doing the right thing, we shall be able to look at the whole set-up after four or five years' experience to see whether there needs to be some radical amendment to what we decide today if we agree to the Strathclyde Region.
5.45 p.m.
I understand that we are also discussing Amendment No. 72. No mention has been made of that. This is the only opportunity we shall have to debate it. I am surprised at those hon. Members who have different views upon it. If we agree to the concept of a Strathclyde Region, because it gives a greater manoeuverability and flexibility in operation, equally and locally we must support a greater Glasgow area.
I support the Committee, but I oppose the Secretary of State in his purely political expediency in trying to take out of the greater Glasgow area those burghs—

Mr. Galbraith: Surely the hon. Gentleman is contradicting himself. Did he not say that he would support the Bill as it

left the Committee? The Bill, as it left the Committee, had the Strathclyde Region in it and it had some of the peripheral areas taken out of Glasgow.

Sir M. Galpern: I am sorry the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) was not listening to what I said. That is exactly what I am saying. I am supporting both propositions: the Strathclyde Region and the greater Glasgow area which includes the peripheral burghs that we included. Is that not what the hon. Gentleman is saying?

Mr. Galbraith: My recollection of the Committee is that it went on for a very long time. I may have recollected wrongly, but my recollection of what happened was that the Committee took out of Glasgow certain of the peripheral areas—left them in mid air, if one likes, but it took them out all right.

Sir M. Galpern: Took them out?

Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman is right in respect of the Committee. My hon. Friend is right in respect of the Bill as it left the House.

Sir M. Galpern: I am right. In any case, whichever way it is, I strongly support the proposition that areas such as Bearsden, Milngavie, Rutherglen and Bishopbriggs are properly placed in the greater Glasgow district. There is no argument about how many people travel in daily or what journeys are made. The fact remains that 99·9 per cent, of the people in Eastwood, Bearsden or Rutherglen all have their being based on Glasgow.
I am not interested in statistics, journeys or shopping expeditions. What I know stems from my being a native of Glasgow, living in Glasgow and watching the Glasgow scene every day. I know quite well that the inhabitants of areas which the Secretary of State for Scotland is now prepared to take out because of political expediency feel that their areas ought to be within the greater Glasgow district. They need not fear that they will be submerged.
One of the great arguments in Committee was on the value of community councils. We did not do much about it but we argued that community councils could be important adjuncts to community councils. Bearsden, for example,


could have two or three district councils to look after purely local matters, where people could make representations to their elected representatives to the greater Glasgow district.
Therefore, I hope that the House will reject the Secretary of State's proposition to exclude these areas and I hope he will put them in again.

Mr. Michael Noble: I do not intend to detain the House for long, but I agree with almost everyone who has spoken on the amendment that to bring on the Bill today has made a mess of things. I do not think that the other place was very clever, and nor was the management of this House which arranged for the Bill to come forward on a Monday and not on a Tuesday or a Wednesday when we should have had more time. It is an almost impossible task for the House to do justice in the short time available to the extremely complicated new concept which the other place has introduced. Perhaps some believe that we should take the whole thing back and start again next year. Heaven forbid, because ultimately we should be no better off than we shall be tomorrow morning or whenever we finish.
I am informed, I am sure reliably, that my county council met last week and in an almost unprecedented state of unanimity voted 52 to 1, I believe, in favour of getting away from Strathclyde. It would have voted a short time ago, not quite so strenuously, to get away from Inverness, or almost anything else. To date the county council has supported me and I have supported it with a good deal of understanding and sympathy.
We speak of local government as though we were still in the horse and cart age. I have a good deal of sympathy for the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) in his brief remarks about democracy. I am certain that I get more letters about purely county council affairs every week than the appropriate member of the county council does. People write to me as a Member of Parliament because they hope that I can do something and because they do not believe that their county council will. I am not saying whether they are right or wrong, but almost all right hon. and hon. Members have this experience. I have never carried out a complete study but I guess that about 80 per cent, of the

letters I get each week are on purely county council matters. If that is so, the day is past in many respects when the local councillor, whether a county councillor, a district councillor or a borough councillor, was the person to whom ordinary men and women naturally appealed for justice. Instead they appeal to us and that is sadly only too obvious.
However, there is still deeply implanted in many breasts in Argyll, including those of the county councillors, the view that they do not want to have anything to do with Glasgow. I am sure that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern), who spoke up bravely and well for the councillors he had worked with and known for many years, may have a perfectly good and valid point. Right or wrong, however, there is a widespread fear throughout the Strathclyde area that it will be dominated by Glasgow, a fear which has been expressed particularly strongly since Lord Hughes moved his amendment.
In the original plan that I put forward for forming local government, in the comments I made to Lord Wheatley's commission and on almost every other occasion that I have spoken about the matter, I have said consistently that we need the smallest sensible number of top-tier authorities and certainly a larger number of district authorities than Lord Wheatley and his commission proposed. For that reason, but not only for that reason, I cannot possibly support the amendment which suggests that we should add a further four top-tier regions in Scotland at the drop of a hat and at the whims of six or seven noble Lords who—and I envy them—did not spend as long as we did discussing the implications and difficulties of this exceedingly complex problem.
I cannot accept it, sad though I am that a suggestion of mine to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and to my noble Friend Lady Tweedsmuir when she was in the Scottish Office that we should have a Clyde area is very similar to one of the four proposals by Lord Hughes. At that time I believed that the idea could have worked. It was turned down, and I am not now prepared to wreck what is left of the Bill by allowing at this late stage, a further four top-tier


regions, a move which does not make sense.
We could argue about it for hours and in so doing we should only do a great disservice to what I believe to be the right process now which is to let all the people in the area around Glasgow people who are scared of Glasgow—right or wrong—to get together and work out a sensible scheme to make sure that they are not dominated, if that is what they fear, by a number of hooligan councillors from Glasgow, if that is what they believe. Let them make their own plans to ensure a good and efficient Strathclyde region. The scheme would need a lot of sense and good will, but it is possible and I believe that it will happen.

Mr. Lambie: I support the amendments passed in the House of Lords and I oppose the motion in the name of the Secretary of State. For many years I have campaigned for the abolition of the House of Lords, yet today I am forced to say "Thank God for the House of Lords." It seems strange in a discussion of local government that Labour Members who support the Lords amendments have to give thanks to the majority decision of the other place and hope that the second chance offered to this democratic House will be taken and that the amendment will be agreed to.
I am not speaking today as a Member of Parliament voicing his own opinions. I have had more letters and communications during the passage of the Bill than I received on major legislation such as the Bill which took us into the Common Market. Every letter, every telegram, every telephone call and every communication I have received on this subject, with the exception of those from Glasgow Corporation, has appealed to me to use my power to vote in support of Lord Hughes' amendment. I have not yet received a letter from any citizen of Glasgow telling me to support the Government tonight. The only communications I have received to that effect have come from Glasgow Corporation.
6.0 p.m.
I stay in the constituency of Bute and North Ayrshire, but I represent the constituency of Central Ayrshire covering the major part of the North Ayrshire area. Within that area public opinion is

generally reflected through our local Press. We have four local newspapers, and each one, reflecting public opinion, has come out in support of Lord Hughes' amendment. The most Tory of the newspapers is the Troon and Prestwick Times, and on Friday the editor's opinion column stated:
One can only assume that the Conservative Party have a death wish in Scotland. They must know that the apathy of the West of Scotland citizens, which has enabled them to get away with this disgraceful misuse of a Bill designed to improve local government, will give way to fury when the effects of regionalisation are eventually felt … That fury will be expressed at the polling booths and it is doubtful if Ayrshire will return even one Tory Member at the next election.
I draw the attention of the Under-Secre-tary of State, who represents Ayr, to that statement from one of the newspapers that circulates in parts of his constituency. Those of us supporting the Lords amendment are here today in support of public opinion throughout Scotland and, I contend, public opinion within Glasgow itself.

Sir M. Galpern: Will my hon. Friend cite examples of the supporting evidence of people, other than local government support, in Glasgow?

Mr. Lambie: I stated that I had not received one letter from anyone in the Glasgow area giving me an opinion of the Bill.
Today the Secretary of State tried to claim that by splitting the Strathclyde area we would divide the proposed region into four smaller regions that would not be viable. I questioned him about his decision to unite the county of Fife within a new region, because all the arguments he put against splitting up Strathclyde apply equally to the decision to make the county of Fife a region in its own right and to split the southern part of Fife from the Forth estuary and the northern part of Fife from the Tay estuary. If we look at the numbers proposed for each of the four regions, we see that Greater Glasgow has 1,182,000—surely a big enough unit to be viable as a local government unit; Lanarkshire has 573,000; Argyll and Clyde 455,000; and my part of Ayrshire and Arran 366,000. Are not these viable units? They have the area and the population and, in terms of local government, the


ability to run the personal services with which local government is concerned.
The Secretary of State and those who support his amendment must believe what I am saying, because they clearly accept smaller populations for the other regions which are designated in the Bill. For example, the Highlands is to have 172,000 the Grampians 442,000 and, biggest of all, the Lothians 700,000, while the Borders will have only 96,000. Obviously the four regions into which Strathclyde would be divided would be viable if those proposed regions are viable. The Borders, with 96,000 people, can be considered a region in its own right and a viable proposition, according to the Secretary of State. Ayrshire, with a population of just under 400,000, should also be considered a viable region. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about quality?"] Certainly, one should have the quality—I accept that. But one has to give the people in Ayrshire and the other regions of Strathclyde the benefit of the doubt that they, too, have quality, including Glasgow. I want to give Glasgow the right to rule itself but I do not want to give Glasgow the right to rule Ayrshire, which is what we are discussing now.
There is no doubt about the opinions of local authorities in the Strathclyde area. When Lord Hughes called his meeting of local authority representatives in Glasgow on 10th September, 40 of the local authorities represented stated that they supported his amendment; nine stated that they were in favour of the Strathclyde region and, therefore, in favour also of the amendment now put forward by the Secretary of State today; seven had no feeling, or did not express any feeling at that meeting on the matter. If one considers not only the number of local authorities which attended that meeting but also the electorate represented by those bodies, one realises that the overwhelming opinion comes out even stronger in favour of Lords Hughes' amendment.
For example, local authorities with electorates of just under a million, 948,000—are for Strathclyde as it stands; others with electorates of 728,000 are in favour of a break-up of Strathclyde. From these figures one could expect that in the present Strathclyde region there is a majority opinion among the electors in favour of the splitting-up of Strathclyde.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: I have listened to the hon. Member's statistical argument with great interest, but, if he wants to present his case fairly, does he not recognise, according to the debate in another place, that the Minister of State received representations after that meeting with local authorities which represented a totally contrary balance of electoral interest and a totally contrary view to that which the hon. Gentleman has explained to the House?

Mr. Lambie: I am quoting the figures given to me by Lord Hughes and quoted by him in the other place. Anyone who studies the rating review of local authorities, their populations and electorates, will find that the figures I give are justifiable. Among the electorates of all the local authority areas within Strathclyde there appears to be a majority in favour of Strathclyde as it is. If one excludes Glasgow, which has 601,000 electors, one finds that the majority of people within the four regions are in favour of the Lords amendment. For example, 728,000 are for the four regions proposed and 347,000 are for Strathclyde as a single region. The overwhelming majority of people—a two-to-one majority—outside the Glasgow area are in favour of the Lords amendment. It is clear, therefore, that the overwhelming majority opinion of people outwith Glasgow within the Strathclyde area is in favour of the Lords amendment.

Mr. Lawson: I do not know whether my hon. Friend was at the meeting, but I was and my clear impression was that it was against the division of Strathclyde. Few people had any knowledge of what would happen subsequently, but the Lord Hughes had a roll-call vote, and anyone could have told him what the result would be without even going to the meeting. The meeting was very definitely against the division of Strathclyde.

Mr. Lambie: I attended that meeting. I never go to any meeting looking for a decision and taking it by acclamation. I am a democrat, and I take a decision by people being willing to stand up when their name is called and stating whether or not they are in favour of a proposition. I know that my hon. Friend is a great supporter of the undemocratic


institutions in Europe, and perhaps they work that way in Europe, but I hope that we never reach the stage where we work on the principle of acclamation for local government decisions in Scotland.
I am in a difficulty here, because I am one of the few Members of this House who would rather see Scottish Members out of it and in their own Chamber in Edinburgh. But here, as in my former opposition to the House of Lords and in wanting it abolished, I have to change my mind, because it would have been better for the people of Ayrshire if we had been included within the English Local Government Act instead of having this Bill. I say that because in, for example, the Greater Manchester area, which has a population equivalent to that of the proposed Strathclyde—roughly 2·7 million—the English Members and the Government, which the Secretary of State is supposed to represent, decided that for the personal and local government services they would break up that area not into four districts but into 10. Surely, if it is good enough for the city of Manchester and the areas surrounding it to deal with the personal services, such as education, housing and social services, on the basis of a division into 10 districts with populations ranging from 174,000 to 541,000 under an English Act, it is a good principle to put into a Scottish Bill.

Mr. William Hannan: Arising out of the question of 10 districts, is my hon. Friend aware that there has been an increasing correspondence with the central department to resolve criticisms and warring factions? Also, is it local democracy when the central department decides the matter for them and acts as referee? Would it not be better if they had power to make decisions for themselves, which would at least be democratic?

Mr. Lambie: If my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) thinks that by having Strathclyde we shall have no warring factions, I would say that he did not attend a meeting of the Labour Party in Glasgow on Sunday. The Labour Party has now started the warring factions, before we have actually decided the principles of the Bill. In view of all these interventions, I

think that I should speak more about Glasgow, because I have never seen such a great attendance of Glasgow Members.

Mr. Hannan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is the accepted practice of this House that Members should make allegations of that character which are unfounded and cannot be substantiated?

Mr. Lambie: I withdraw that remark, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: That is not, in fact, a point of order, but the hon. Member has disposed of the matter by withdrawing what he said.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Lambie: Sometimes when one is arguing in banter, the report of what is said looks different in print. I certainly withdraw. I was making the point that in the Government's English Act of Parliament they have divided the Greater Manchester area into 10 districts, equivalent in power to the four councils which we now want for the Strathclyde area, and I was saying that what is good enough for Manchester should be good enough for the Glasgow area.
To get back to my main opposition to the region of Strathclyde, I have been told on many occasions, mainly by my own colleagues and friends, that it is Labour party policy to support the Wheatley Commission and its report, and I can accept that. Various Scottish conferences of the Labour Party have it on record that we in the Labour Party support the principles enunciated by the Wheatley Report. One must remember, however, that what we are discussing today is not the Wheatley Report. We are discussing today a Tory Government's Bill giving their interpretation of what John Wheatley said, and it is on that basis that I am really against the whole principle of Strathclyde.
According to the OFFICIAL REPORT at col. 834, Lord Wheatley summed up in one paragraph his whole idea of local democracy and local government in a Lords debate on local government reform. It is this idea of Lord Wheatley's to which I object, and this idea is contained within the provisions of the Bill. Lord Wheatley stated:
"… if we want to get veal democracy we must try to build up a system containing units


with real power. What the consumer of service would want … is not necessarily to have the council round the corner: what he is looking for is that an official of the local authority supplying the service should be readily available round the corner.
That represents my whole criticism of the concept of Strathclyde, because it will mean that the power of the local councillor will be eroded while the power of the official will be increased. We shall reach the stage where we get local government by official and not by councillor.
There is another criticism of the Bill in Lord Wheatley's first sentence, because he said:
…if we want to get real democracy we must try to build up a system containing units with real power."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 23rd March, 1971; Vol. 316, c. 834.]
Unless we change the financial structure of local government, no matter how big we make local government units we shall never get units of great authority because while the central Government are financing local government to the tune of anything from 60 per cent, to 90 per cent., as they will be doing when these new proposals become law, we shall never have units of great power. In the Highland Region for example, rateborne expenditure will in future be financed by over 90 per cent, of Government grant. I accept that when the Government are paying 90 per cent, of the cost of rateborne expenditure they will have 90 per cent, of the say, so that there will be no real power in the Highland area.
If Strathclyde becomes a reality, the Government will be financing between 60 per cent, and 70 per cent, of the rateborne expenditure of that new region. No one in this House will tell me that the Government will give £70 for every £100 spent by the Strathclyde area and not demand to know where the money is being spent. In fact, we are building up a dinosaur, an animal which is big in bulk but which has no power or intelligence. We are building up a local authority like Strathclyde which will be large but will have no power at all because it will not have financial control over its own affairs. It is unfair of the Secretary of State to say that the local authorities will be given power by him once the reform of local government structure is completed.
This is not only my argument. If we look at past arguments from the Wheatley

Commission and arguments presented by the Secretary of State in various White Papers on local government finance, we find that the same proposals are put forward. In the White Paper on Local Government Reform published by the Secretary of State in February 1971, we were told:
The Government accept that the proposals for local government reorganisation are incomplete without a thorough re-examination of local government finance.
The Government have carried out a restructuring of local government but they have not yet carried out a restructuring of local government finance. In fact, all they have done is to publish a Green Paper which surveys all the possibilities, but they have said that they will not interfere with the present method of financing local government and that in future local government finance will come from the two main sources from which it comes at present, namely central Government grants and local rates.
Lord Wheatley himself in his report supports my argument when he says:
We cannot overlook the crucial relevance to our own recommendations of securing a proper financial system for local government.
He comes out clearly in support of the point of view, which I am putting forward tonight, that it is not possible to consider his ideas for the reform of local government without stating how one intends to finance the new local government units.
Throughout the whole of the Wheatley Report, in the evidence and in the final report, there occurs this theme: that we have to get a reorganisation of local government and that we must have bigger areas in order to get more power away from the central authority. Lord Wheatley's whole idea was to build up local government into something viable and strong, to devolve on to a local level the powers which are on a national level. I support that idea, but the Bill does not support it. That is why, when people tell me that I should vote in support of a policy which was adopted at the annual conference of the Labour Party—the policy of supporting the Wheatley Commission—I reply that they have not read the Wheatley Report. They have not understood that, without reorganising local government finance, one cannot and dare not reorganise the local government


structure. This is why I support the Lords amendment.
Local government is not abstract; it is about people and about local communities. We must give credit to people who have devoted their lives to the service of local government. I may have been harsh on some of my colleagues in Glasgow but, speaking in the general context, we have got to give credit to those people who have given their lives to the service of local government. If we ever think of local government not as a people's service, not as people dealing with local communities, but as a service which can be provided by officials on a gigantic scale, we shall be doing a disservice to the traditions of local government and to the people who have been employed in it in Scotland.
People in local government have to be approachable and easily reached. In a situation such as exists in my constituency, for example, where one of the electoral areas includes the burghs of Stevenston and Kilwinning and the landward area of Irvine district council, and that electoral area elects one representative, the local councillor will not be approachable. He will not be the man down the street or the man round the corner. In fact, he may not even be the man who stayed within that electoral area. He may be someone from Paisley, Argyll or Glasgow. In the burgh of Kilwinning there are 7,000 electors, and they will get one-third of a councillor. That does not provide a local government service. If we think that democracy will continue in this country with this proposed type of local government organisation, we are thinking wrongly.
Strathclyde can never be considered a region of local government. It is too big to be considered as a solid local government area. In fact, the population of the Strathclyde area as proposed by the Government will be larger than most of the countries which form part of the United Nations.
The Government will never be forgiven by the people of Scotland, whatever their political affiliations, if they push this proposal through with the votes of the English Tory majority. This is bad local government. It is not democracy. It will only generate frustration and bitterness among communities and, instead of

uniting communities, it will divide them. For that reason I hope that Scottish Members at least will stand up tonight and be counted in support of the amendment sent to us from the other place.

Mr. Galbraith: I shall not answer the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) because that would take much too long. We have already been over this ground a great deal.
My only reason for intervening is that I am the third Member for Glasgow who has been fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. The other two hon. Members, those for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) and Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern), disagreed with each other. The hon. Member for Craigton wanted to split the Strathclyde region. The hon. Member for Shettleston wanted the region to be kept. I disagree with both of them, and for that reason I intervene briefly.
To begin with, I confess that I had some doubts about the size of the Strathclyde region and I flirted with the idea of perhaps splitting it up. To that extent I am sympathetic to the point of view expressed by the hon. Member for Craigton. Finally, however, I found myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Shettleston that Strathclyde should remain one region. I do so for geographical reasons. If one looks at a map, one finds that the bulk of the population live in and around Glasgow.
6.30 p.m.
Other areas such as Lanarkshire, Dunbarton and Renfrew have been mentioned. The people who give these areas their large populations are virtually on the outskirts of Glasgow. Beyond a radius of 20 or 30 miles from Glasgow there is a great deal of land but hardly any people. It may be that the Strathclyde area is too big as an area of land, although the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) can scarcely argue that since he has been responsible for increasing the land size of Strathclyde and for bringing in Girvan and a large part of Ayrshire which belongs to it.
I do not deny that each of the areas into which it has been suggested that Strathclyde should be split would be viable on its own, if it were differently situated, but unfortunately all these areas


are situated around Glasgow. The only possibility might be Ayrshire itself, if the bulk of the population were in the north part of Ayrshire rather than in the south.

Mr. Baxter: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to recognise the geographical position of Central Scotland. Does he not recognise that the central area, Stirling and Falkirk, is adjacent to Kilsyth and Cumbernauld, much nearer to Kilsyth and Cumbernauld than Glasgow? It is a comparatively small area. Why were two populous areas in the Strathclyde area not included in the central area?

Mr. Galbraith: One might put the question the other way round and ask why those two areas were not put in the Strathclyde area. It would be ridiculous because they are too far to the east. Cumbernauld is virtually on top of Glasgow and was built as a new town to take the overspill from Glasgow.
I am trying to explain why I started by flirting with the idea of splitting Strathclyde, because I thought the size was excessive, but have now come round to the same way of thinking as the hon. Member for Shettleston that Strathclyde must be one area. It is wrong that Strathclyde should be split into four areas as Lord Hughes suggested. These areas are not in isolation. If they were, they would stand on their own like Fife. These areas are very much bound up with Glasgow, which is the heart of the urban area. For these geographical reasons, I have come to the conclusion that I must part company with the hon. Member for Craigton and support, partially at any rate, the hon. Member for Shettleston.
The hon. Member for Shettleston said that he would support the Bill as it left the Committee. I interrupted to say that I wished that was what he would do, because he is not supporting the Bill as it left Committee. When the Bill left Committee there was the Strathclyde region and a bit of the periphery taken off Glasgow. That is where I differ from him. The Strathclyde area should be one unit but, as the Government have suggested, we should clip off the periphery from Glasgow.
People who feel strongly about the matter from the Glasgow point of view, as

persuasively put forward by the hon. Member for Shettleston, forget that everyone who lives in the whole of the Strathclyde area will be getting his living not out of Glasgow, Bearsden, Paisley, Wishaw or wherever it happens to be but out of the Strathclyde area.
As was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble), there is great fear among people living outside Glasgow that the new region will be dominated by Glasgow. I understand and sympathise with that, not because there is anything wrong with the councillors of Glasgow, who are probably superior to those with whom the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire may be associated, but because the size of Glasgow, if it were the Greater Glasgow, would enable it nearly to dominate the whole region. But if it is the smaller Glasgow, the Glasgow of its present size without the peripheral areas added, the people in Ayr, Ayrshire, Lanarkshire, Dunbartonshire and Argyll have no need to fear. If, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll suggested, the people in those areas merge, they can easily overcome the vote of the Glasgow councillors.

Sir M. Galpern: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why Glasgow Chamber of Commerce unanimously supports the inclusion of Bearsden and the other peripheral parts?

Mr. Galbraith: Because it expects the situation to be the same as it was in the past. It is still thinking that all the rates will be paid by Glasgow and therefore takes the view that people who get their livelihood in Glasgow are evading their responsibility by living outside Glasgow and ought to be councillors in Glasgow. However, they will not be councillors in Glasgow; they will be councillors in Strathclyde.
The hon. Gentleman and his friends—it is interesting to see where he has his friends—are looking at things in an old-fashioned way and have not woken up to the fact that a revolution is taking place in local government and that people's loyalty will not be to the Girvan area or Dunbarton, but to the region.
If my right hon. Friend allowed me to have my way—which unfortunately he will not—I would split up the existing


Glasgow in the way London has been split up. I would like to see this done. It has been suggested several times by the New Glasgow Society. I believe in accepting things as they are and having Glasgow remain its existing size. It is big enough. We should leave out the periphery. The people living in the country districts surrounding Glasgow have nothing to fear from being overborne by the might of Glasgow.
I disagree with the other two Glasgow Members who have spoken and agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Mr. James Sillars: I hope to be reasonably brief, because I have covered the subject twice—once in Committee and once on Report—but the Lord Hughes amendment is somewhat different in certain aspects.
My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) failed to understand our arguments about democracy. We are not arguing that the present local government structure in Scotland should be broken down even further because we equate parochialism with democracy. If he examines our proposed amendments objectively he will see that we are arguing for the abolition of the county councils, the district councils, the small burghs and large burghs and for the creation of new authorities, fairly large authorities in comparison with the Borders, the Dumfries and Galloway area, Lothian and certainly Fife and The Highlands.
It is not a question of a tremendous desire by the people attacking Strathclyde to get so far down into the grass roots that viable units of government, local or otherwise, do not exist.

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend seems not to keep in mind that there will be district councillors and regional councillors. Is the suggestion that the district councillors and the regional councillors will be so much less able to represent his constituents than he as the Member of Parliament?

Mr. Siliars: We operate at entirely different levels, for different functions. I sometimes find that the councillors are in closer touch with my constituents than I am, simply because they live in Scotland seven days a week. I sometimes

find myself in closer touch, because on one day of the week, a Friday or a Saturday, I hold a surgery in part of my constituency. But I would not suggest that on local government functions in their entirety and on the policy involved in local government I'am nearer the people than some of my friends representing places like Saltcoats, New Cumnock, Muirkirk, Cumnock, or people representing areas such as West Kilbride, or Largs.

Mr. Baxter: My hon. Friend spoke about the terrible crime of parochialism. What is wrong with parochialism, with looking after the interests of one's own area and one's own people? I can never understand why that useful word should be so decried by people who do not seem to recognise that it is the function of democracy to be parochial at times and at other times to be broader in outlook.

Mr. Sillars: I must disagree with my hon. Friend. One can become parochial to the point of destruction when attempts are made to create new road systems, water systems, police systems, social work systems. Like my hon. Friend, I have been a member of a local authority and seen parochialism at work. I do not always condemn it, and it is sometimes helpful to have a parochial point of view, but a structure in which parochialism becomes dominant as opposed to the wider view is destructive, and something we should resist. I was not promoting that sort of idea in supporting the Hughes amendment.
My hon. Friend raised the important question of the quality of the representatives. The same principles apply to any kind of establishment or organisation. In an establishment of 630 people, even if they are elected by one of the most sophisticated electoral systems in the world, one will find a given proportion of exceptionally able people, able people and ordinary people and a minority of mediocrities. In a council of 18 members, somehow or other democracy seems to shake the bag and we find people who are exceptionally able, able, ordinary and mediocre. The same applies to a bowling club as to the highest legislative council in the land.
The creation of a Strathclyde regional council with only 100 members does not mean that it will have 100 of the most


able people in the whole of Strathclyde. What happens there will be no different from what happens in this Chamber or any other chamber in the country.
One of the tests we must apply to the Lords amendment is to ask which will give us the best local government structure over the whole range of functions. That is how we must decide between the Lords amendment and the Secretary of State's suggestion that we reject it and replace the suggested authorities with Strathclyde. There are many local government functions at the regional level, such as education and social work and the police service. We can pass lightly over the fact that we are to create a police force of 6,500. When we talk about control by a democratic society, we remember that that function has the least number of factors of control built into it, justifiably and for reasons that we all know. Other functions include the fire service, planning, water, roads, transport, airports, flood prevention, coast protection, parks and sewerage. There is a whole range of local government functions that deserve to be examined in relation to the ideas advanced by the other place and by the Secretary of State.
6.45 p.m.
It is pretty clear from all the previous debates and from what the Secretary of State has said that the Government, unlike my hon. Friends the Members for Motherwell and Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern), have pinned their case on the argument that strategic planning is so important that it must be elevated above all else, that every other function of local government should be subordinate. The Government seem to cast into a category of lesser importance functions such as education and social work and the police and fire services. I cannot agree. When evidence was given to the Wheatley Commission by the Scottish Education Department, witnesses were aghast at the idea of an education authority going well beyond a population of a million. They thought that the optimum size was probably about 250,000. They were aghast at the thought of half the population of Scotland coming under a single education authority.
Among those involved in social work there are divisions of opinion. There are those who look for a structure which gives promotional opportunities and who

tend to welcome the Strathclyde region, but many people concerned with the day-to-day aspects of social work are appalled at the size of such an authority. The optimum population size suggested by expert witnesses was again about 250,000.
It was not a good parallel for my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell to draw between the work of the social work department and the work of the social security departments attached to the Supplementary Benefits Commission. The latter work within a narrowly defined remit, whereas the social work department worker requires flexibility in his character above everything else.
Despite the arguments about the fire and police services and education and social work, the Government seem to stick to the idea that strategic planning must be put above all else. They are wrong because they will not give Strathclyde strategic planning functions of a general competence beyond local authorities' present planning functions. The Secretary of State told me that Hunterston was a bit different. He says that everyone acknowledges its special character, its uniqueness, and that as Secretary of State he must attach it to himself. He says that it cannot be accepted as a good example of strategic planning.
Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that Hunterston will not produce its strategic planning demands on the Strathclyde, Tayside, Forth and Lothian regional authorities? If Hunterston goes ahead, a tremendous demand for resources and infrastructure will result. That will affect the strategic plan of Strathclyde, and will also affect Tayside, Forth, and Lothian. The Secretary of State will not say "Let those authorities get on with it", because the magnitude of the Oceanspan concept will demand resources from central government which the Secretary of State will have to control.
Even if my previous argument fell, which I do not think it does, no one can ignore the fact that an authority covering half the people of Scotland could not be allowed to plan strategically in its own right as though the rest of Scotland would be unaffected. That will not happen. If Strathclyde had strategic planning powers and obtained resources internally to promote a strategic plan, it would affect the Highlands, Tayside, Lothian, the Borders and Dumfries and Galloway. That could


not be allowed to happen. The Secretary of State would have to intervene. He has laid the ground already for intervention.
In his reply to some of the proposals put forward by the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, the Secretary of State made it clear that he has rejected some of the suggestions for an overall strategic planning body for Scotland. That is because he says that local government will deal with such matters. However, in Land Resource Use in Scotland he says:
Such machinery 
—he refers to the machinery suggested by the Select Committee—
would not reflect the realities of land use planning, which is at present, and in the Government's view must remain, a joint responsibility of elected central and local government, each reacting on the other.
It is important to note the place which the right hon. Gentleman has grabbed for central government in any set up which emerges from what the Select Committee or the House says.
The right hon. Gentleman gave us an example of where he thought strategic planning could operate on the basis of a local authority with its own competence. That example was given on the basis of democratic decision. He mentioned Murco. He said that Hunterston is not "on". Is he saying that if we get another development of the character of Murco it will follow that from the Strathclyde Regional Authority, whatever its decision happened to be, there might be the possibility of appeal to the Secretary of State? But would the Secretary of State say, "It is nothing to do with me. That is a strategic planning function of Strathclyde Regional Authority?"
The Secretary of State knows full well that if we get one or 10 more Murco's they will all go the same way—namely, local planning decisions, local planning inquiries, regional planning decisions, regional planning inquiries and finally to the Secretary of State. We make the decision, in fact, at the end of the day.
I submit that the Hughes amendment puts local government functions in perspective. It gives added weight to strategic planning, but no more and no less than strategic planning deserves, given the restrictions which are bound to be

placed upon it by central government. It gives appropriate regard to the other equally important functions. It places them in an appropriate geographical and population setting within influential reach of the people and within a democratic structure.
I hope that no one imagines for a moment that there are those who are afraid of Strathclyde because they are rather afraid of Glasgow. There are those who oppose Strathclyde because they do not agree about Glasgow's problems or because they do not know about its problems. I care deeply about Glasgow's problems. It has been my privilege on occasions, and it will be my privilege again at the Govan by-election, to find myself on the doorsteps of the people of Glasgow. They are the salt of the earth, They are as good a people as the people from Ayrshire.
I want for Glasgow a good, effective, viable and democratic local government service. I want it as much for the people of Glasgow as I want it for Ayrshire. It is my sincere belief that the Hughes amendment will give better local government for all of the people in Strathclyde and not just the authorities outside Glasgow. That is a matter which I wish to impress on the Government and especially to my hon. Friends from Glasgow. There is no question of being anti-Glasgow. I believe that the Hughes amendment in practice would be good for everyone.

Mr. Baxter: I thought that the Secretary of State, in the course of his first remarks, would have expressed gratitude to the members of the other place for giving so much thought and consideration to this difficult Bill and for coming up with so many amendments which at least they thought were amendments to improve its structure.
Unfortunately, the right hon. Gentleman did not think fit to express appreciation to his colleagues in another place. That is to be expected because the attitude and frame of mind seems to be prevalent in the Government that this measure must go through irrespective of whether it is good, bad or indifferent. They are not concerned that it may undermine local government rather than lead to the revitalisation of local government, which the Wheatley Commission thought its report would bring about.
The concept which Wheatley had and which apparently the Government seemed to imagine—namely, that by making larger areas such as the Strathclyde region we shall get a better quality of councillor—is one with which I do not agree. By and large the quality of the councillors throughout Scotland is of a high standard. The amount of progress which has been made by local authorities since the war, not withstanding the cold and clammy hand of the Department in Edinburgh which has been placed on many worthwhile projects, has been remarkable. It is not the case that local authorities have retarded progress. It is the fault of central government that progress has been held back.
The right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) expressed the view that in a recent vote a proportion of his local authorities—in fact, 50-odd to one—did not want to be associated with Glasgow. I do not think that the good people of Argyll are anti-Glasgow. They recognise that Glasgow has a problem which is interwoven not only with the great social problems which have evolved over the ages, but with the great cost of curing such problems. That is why the people of Argyll, and the people of other parts of the Strathclyde region, have some worry about joining the Strathclyde region.
The great social needs of Glasgow have not as yet been fulfilled. Even those which have been fulfilled have not all been paid for. That is not the fault of Glasgow but the fault of succeeding Governments which have not recognised that Glasgow had a unique and difficult problem to solve which was not approached in any shape or form by any other city in Great Britain. Succeeding Governments did not appreciate the magnitude of the problem which faced Glasgow.
By and large, Glasgow has done a good job in trying to bring about a revolution in the lives of its people. But that is where the crux of the problem is met. That is the problem of who has to pay for the services. The tragedy of the Bill and of the amendment presented by another place is that it gives no lead or guidance as to how the great Strathclyde region is to be financed in future.
If we break the back of that problem, if we cure the problem of how to finance

local government, the problem of establishing areas of good administrative size falls into place and no difficulty need arise. That is my condemnation of the Government. They have been given an opportunity by the House of Lords to rethink the whole content of the Bill. They should have decided to recommit the Bill to the House in the next Session. They know the full implications of the Kilbrandon Report. If forecasts are true, that report forecasts some things which I have been advocating for many years. It forecasts that we must have a central authority in Scotland, whether it be called a central commission, a Scottish parliament or something else. It must have power over broad planning activity, from university education to primary education, from the highways to the byways of our land, and over the planning of our cities and their centres, so that we do not have one area of Scotland planning without a full and proper regard to those areas adjacent to it.
7.0 p.m.
This is a terrific condemnation of not only the Government but each and every one of us. We have not the breadth of vision to see that we must try to inculcate into the plans for our towns and villages in Scotland a co-ordinated scheme bringing into being not only good educational aspects and good planning but, especially over the years that lie ahead, great aspects of recreation. We have failed to recognise that. The recreational and environmental aspects of life are becoming more important every day.
These amendments presented to us by the House of Lords are excellent in many ways but do not go far enough. They restrict me greatly here, because in the new set-up proposed for the Strathclyde area Cumbernauld and Kilsyth are being placed as one group. Cumbernauld Corporation, Kilsyth Town Council and practically all the people of that area recognise that they would be better going into the central area, which would give this area a greater degree of flexibility, to move themselves and to utilise the great advantages of Cumbernauld New Town and Grangemouth, the foremost port of Scotland in many ways.
By virtue of the House of Lords not going far enough, we are curtailed in putting forward amendments which we believe could have helped to bring about


a better structure of local government in Scotland. I do not have the time to repeat some of what I said in the Scottish Grand Committee about the wrongness of the whole concept of local government which the Wheatley Commission and the present Government have more or less accepted. It shows how foolish we or the Government can be when I say that if one makes mistakes on the small things of life one is bound to take them into the bigger things of life. He who seeks to make perfection of the small things has every probability of making perfection of the large things. An old Scottish saying is, "Look after the bawbees and the pounds will look after themelves." So it is with moral considerations, or with considerations of justice.
In the Kilsyth East area the small village of Banton has a population of about 600 people. The other small village making up Kilsyth East is Banknock. The Government, in their wisdom or otherwise, after representations, have put Banknock into the central area, leaving the village of Banton to go into the Strathclyde area. Most of those who live in Banton work in Bonnybridge, Falkirk and the central area. Our drainage goes to Bonnybridge. The central purification plant is there. The whole structure of that area has always been a structure connected with Stirling. My granddaughter was born in the Stirling Infirmary a couple of years ago.
We in Stirlingshire, after the war, tried to conceive a better method of looking after the health of our community. The voluntary hospitals and the local authorities co-operated. The concept that we conceived was based upon the purchasing of the Airthrey Castle estate for a large hospital. The reason for that purchase was to be able to take in people from Kilsyth, Queenzieburn Old Cumbernauld and right on to Bo'ness. That concept should have been followed in the local government idea, bringing into the central area a viable and sensible unit. Instead of that, the very opposite has been done, with small villages such as Banton being put into the Strathclyde Region.
When one does an injustice to the weak or the small, one will do an injustice to the strong or the large.
That is the theme of my condemnation of the Government. A great error of judgment has been made. A great opportunity has been missed. There is nothing wrong with Government or an individual having second thought and giving a little more consideration to the problem. What would be lost? Local government would not stop. It is continuing. There is nothing wrong with it. It is doing yeoman service. But what stops it? A fortnight ago a circular was sent to all local authorities saying that the Government had decided to cut back on schools hospitals and other public buildings, and that the only exception to that would be housing. Who is cutting back? Who is curtailing the activities of local authorities? It is the Government who are guilty. Those are the guilty men.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order—not in relation to this amendment.

Mr. Baxter: At times we all get a little carried away with the thoughts that come to mind and flow from the tongue. I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I should cast any reflections upon hon. Members in too harsh a manner. With all due respect, however, and speaking as an elder statesman of local government, having served in local government for many years, I think that this was a great and glorious opportunity to bring to local government a new impetus and new concept. But the Government should have waited until Kilbrandon gave the lead. They will not build a good building without solid and sensible foundations. The foundations of local government and its advancement or retardation must be based on finance. If it does not have that power, it will have nothing.

Mr. David Steel: With the exception of the Secretary of State, I think that I am the first speaker in the debate whose constituency is not affected by the amendment. It is with some temerity that I enter into the debate.
I echo something that was said by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars). Hon. Members representing all parts of Scotland have a responsibility to consider this very important matter in the context of the shape of the economy, planning and structure of local government in Scotland as a whole. The debate


has not been harmed by the evident disunity in the ranks on the Opposition side of the House. I do not conceal from the House the fact that my Liberal colleagues are split asunder on this issue. My right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) is in favour of the Lords amendment and my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) is in favour of the pure milk and water of the Wheatley Commission, which does not surprise me. I have undertaken to them both to put their views succinctly to the House—as I have—compared them with each other, and sent them to the battlefront.
My own views on this matter have been somewhat mixed. There has been a change of opinion in Scotland as a whole—I am not talking about the Strathclyde Region—as the Bill has progressed. There has been a movement of opinion away from the original structure as seen in the Royal Commission Report and as reflected in the amendment moved by the Secretary of State.
One has to look at the history of this. One of the first things that I did after the Royal Commission reported was, in concert with the local authorities in my area, to campaign for the creation of a separate Borders region. This was one of the few questions on which, in my experience as a Member of Parliament, all the local authorities had been united. At the end of the day, the Government accepted the arguments, and when the White Paper was published there was, indeed, a separate Borders Region created.
That, I think, knocked a dent in the mould the Commission had created, and I accepted that that was so. But when the Government were defeated in Committee on the question of Fife and accepted that, and Fife came into its own as a region, it was not just a dent that was knocked in the mould. For the whole of the East of Scotland, taken east of a line down the middle, the whole Wheatley concept had by that time been destroyed. We were faced with an entirely different pattern of local government.
Therefore, in discussing the Strathclyde Region, we have to say that the House and the Government have accepted a fundamental change from the original Wheatley concept on the eastern side of

Scotland, while the Government are at the same time resisting absolutely any similar fundamental change on the western side.
I believe that that is an illogical position, and it is right, in view of passing events, that the Government should have another look at the Strathclyde Region. I do not pretend that this is the most satisfactory way of doing it, on a Lords amendment at the last minute, and discussing it in this way, but we are up against a deadline at the end of the session. But, having been given this opportunity by the Lords—the Lords vote itself was a reflection of the gradual change of opinion—on balance, I come down in favour of the amendment as presented by the other place.
There is an additional argument which has just been put by the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Baxter). One of my criticisms of the original White Paper, and, indeed, of the Wheatley Report, was that no opportunity was being taken in reforming local government to transfer any major powers from central Government to the new regional structure. Now we have inspired leaks about what the Kilbrandon Commission may report. It seems possible that we may have to discuss—the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) is one of those who have already expressed themselves forcibly in favour—some form of devolution of legislative and executive power to Scotland as a unit. I have always been in favour of that, and there is a growing general opinion in favour.
If that were to happen, one obvious candidate for transfer from this House to a Scottish assembly or executive of any kind would be the whole of local government. There would be no point in dealing with local government matters at Westminster. One would otherwise have a completely unbalanced situation in Scotland, with half the population under this assembly or executive, and half the population in one of the regions if we were to accept the retention of Strathclyde as it stands. That does not make democratic sense. It manifestly makes democratic nonsense.
But I am most persuaded by the argument of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire, that anything that such a powerful region did in terms of strategic and


economic planning would be bound to have an effect on the other regions of Scotland. If there is to be strategic and economic planning on that scale in half of Scotland, why not have it for the whole of Scotland as one unit? It makes more sense.
I have never felt passionately about these issues, because I have broadly taken the view that it is the Members of Parliament in those areas, who know the areas, who should debate the matter but for all those reasons, I have come down, on balance, to the belief that this is an issue which affects us all. I say that as a Member of Parliament from outside the area. I shall vote for the Lords amendment.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Dempsey: I understand that there is a general desire to make progress on the amendment, and I shall therefore be brief, but I feel that some things remain to be said.
First, I find it difficult to understand why the Secretary of State breached the principle of regionalism in the North, South and East, yet he has dug in his toes on any compromise concerning the West. The right hon. Gentleman has been totally inconsistent in his attitude towards the whole concept of the Wheatley proposals in taking up this adamant attitude against any improvement in the regional organisation he has been promoting for the West of Scotland.
I have always believed that there was a need to reorganise local government. Naturally, certain services were uneconomic, and there were administrations which were not viable. Structural improvement was required. But the great danger arising out of reorganisation is that units can become too large, in the same way that, prior to reorganisation, units were too small. That is happening in the matter under discussion.
I believe that the proposed region is far too large. That is why I support Lord Hughes' amendment. I see no cause for a great deal of argument about what social services would best be organised on a regional basis, or on a reduced regional basis, as proposed in the amendment. The fact that this part of the country runs from the west coast almost to Beattock near the Borders should con-

vince the Secretary of State that his proposed area is too large. The title of the Bill, the Local Government (Scotland) Bill, is a misnomer. It is no longer local government. What the right hon. Gentleman is establishing is a mini-parliament for the West of Scotland. He is creating a situation in which government is too far divorced from the people who live in that area.
The situation reminds me of a parallel with another part of the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland has six counties. Strathclyde has six counties. Northern Ireland's population is 1½ million. We have 2½ million. Northern Ireland is to have a full-time Assembly. We are to have 99 voluntary councillors. If one part of the United Kingdom can have a full-time assembly for its six counties, the six-county area in our part of the country, with 99 voluntary councillors, is far too large for any authority to administer. I am convinced that that is so. I said the other day that, if the chief constable wanted to take a week's holiday, he could decide to visit all his police stations and disappear for a week. That is how large the area is.
There are counties in Scotland somewhat on the large size where chief officials have never visited all the institutions in the county. How much more difficult will it be if officials have to take a deciding interest in essential social services over such a large area.
In my own town of Coatbridge we have 18 councillors. They are to be replaced by two councillors. How does the right hon. Gentleman expect two councillors to give the same local personal service to their constituents when they must represent the large area to which I referred? How is it humanly possible to do it? It cannot be done. Local service will suffer and contact between the elected representatives and the people will be prejudiced. We pride ourselves on having the finest democracy in the world because our constituents—plain John Citizens—can contact their representatives when and where necessary.
The Secretary of State for Scotland still has time to rethink this matter. As someone who has had the privilege of serving on the Lanark County Council for 14 years in various capacities, I can say that


there are times when local knowledge is essential. If one talks of certain improvements in a locality one must have a picture in mind of the nature of that locality, the type of services which exist and the problems and habits of the people. In order to guide any authority, one must have the value of local knowledge.
That will be impossible under the regional council because, with a system of sub-committees and executive committees, my two councillors cannot be on every sub-committee. Therefore, a stage is reached when sub-committees of people representing different parts of Ayrshire may arrive in my town to determine matters which can only be determined by local knowledge. It is indicative of the unwieldy structure of the new council proposed by the Secretary of State for Scotland.
I appeal to the Secretary of State at this last minute to reconsider his attitude and to remember that we are doing everything possible to provide services which we can boast are personally managed. Strathclyde Regional Council—with the greatest respect to and greatest appreciation of dedicated officers and councillors—cannot provide a personal service to the men, women and children of this area because it is a physical impossibility.
The whole structure is bound to become unwieldy, impersonal and unmanageable. One will come face to face with the problem of delegating super powers to officials and creating more bureaucracy. I can see bureaucracy rearing its ugly head, not out of any personal ambition for someone to become a bureaucrat, but because it is unavoidable as the results of the powers that will be imposed on individuals.
Suppose people make complaints about a coat stolen from school, about a bad roadway or about serious water leaks. Where are they to go? Is the present County Buildings at Hamilton to be the headquarters, or is it to be Glasgow Corporation? I would have it on the beautiful beach of Ayr. Is that where our people have to go to make their complaints, to see the officers in charge and to get justice? They are paying rates and taxes to maintain this type of structure.
If the Secretary of State feels that by the proposed region he can avoid joint

consultation or joint activities between authorities, he is making a fundamental mistake. There always will be regions contiguous to the Strathclyde Region dealing not only with questions of strategic planning. There will need to be talks and discussions about mutual water and drainage services—they have to have them between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland—apart from what will be necessary when large regions are established. There is no guarantee that there will not be the necessity for joint action. The right hon. Gentleman said that if one has four regions a great deal of joint activity will be required. That will be necessary even if there are only eight regions in Scotland. The only solution to that is to abolish all the regions and have one system of government in Scotland if the Secretary of State wants to avoid contiguous areas demanding mutual consultations.
Because I believe in local government, I believe in consumer services. It is the consumers who matter as it is the consumers who are to pay for water, drainage, homes, planning administration and the industrial development. Surely, the least we can do is to ensure that the consumer has the right to a system of government within reasonable proximity to where he or she lives and works.
The last review of local government was in 1929, 44 years ago. I predict that we shall not wait another 44 years for the next review, because the proposed region advocated by the Secretary of State for Scotland will break down long before then.

Mr. Ross: It is indicative of the concern of the people certainly of the West and many people south of the West that the matter that created immediate interest and controversy in the Royal Commission's Report was the size of the West Region. We are now almost at the very last hour in our consideration of this Bill and we are still discussing Strathclyde or the West Region. When we have made this decision in respect of Strathclyde, we still have to consider the content of the districts with Strathclyde and the question of Glasgow itself.
The Secretary of State must consider that he was unwisely guided when in


February 1971 he issued a White Paper in which he said in respect of boundaries:
The boundaries illustrated may be altered slightly after consultations with local authorities … but the general structure, and the number of regions and the number of regions and districts, are not open to adjustment.
He further said:
The Government's decisions are accordingly set out in this White Paper. The structural proposals which it contains are intended as a prescription for action and not a basis for negotiation.

Mr. William Hannan: My right hon. Friend will recall that, in the House of Lords, Lord Hughes said, in discussing the White Paper and referring to the boundaries—he was glad to note it—
… from which the Government have not departed—as we would not have departed—except in detail."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 23rd March 1971; Vol. 316, c. 816.]
Why this turnabout by the noble Lord in another place from the speech in which he accepted all that was in the White Paper on the boundaries?

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend should have read what my noble Friend said on 15th October when he explained what had happened. He started with the point that I am making, about if we had produced a White Paper. We had not produced a White Paper because we had not finished our considerations, and it may be that Lord Hughes at that time thought that a large Strathclyde was something that we would come to.
What he did say was that the White Paper conclusions of the Government were final and that it was a great pity that they had not followed my instructions, namely that if there were a White Paper it should be a document for consultation and not one of decisions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson), probably anticipating a reference from me, referred to the White Paper on social work which was put forward after consultation with hon. Members and members of local authorities. It was changed with agreement from hon. Members to give powers in respect of social work to the large burghs as well as to the counties.
It is wrong, after more than two years—February 1971—to say these are the decisions, that is the number of districts,

that is the number of regions and we shall not move from them. The Secretary of State, who has handled the Bill from the start, must have been a sad man this morning if he read what was said by the political correspondent in the Glasgow Herald:
The measure has earned the reputation of being the most ill-starred, worst-managed Bill in the present Government's programme. Maplin not excepted. Today it returns to the Commons for consideration of Lords amendments. Never at this stage of proceedings has the House been presented with such an unmade bed of a Bill.
This is perfectly true. The Government are bending and contorting the procedures of the House to enable them later to implement what I consider to be one of the most jerrymandering proposals I have ever seen at this stage of a Bill.
We have had these discussions today, but I have heard it said by many people time and time again that somehow or other in respect of Strathclyde we must stay by the sacred words of Wheatley. It is a little late in the day to talk about the sacred words of Wheatley, because the Wheatley proposals applied to the whole of Scotland. They were balanced proposals and principles to be applied throughout the whole area. I remind the House that Wheatley proposed that there should be a strong Highland Region and argued very strongly for it. But we have not got one. The Highlands are now spread over five regions or island authorities—that is, two regions and three island authorities. There is a Highland Region, an island authority for Shetland, one for Orkney and one for the Western Isles, and Argyll is part of Strathclyde.
The East Region, now Tayside, has lost a considerable part of Fife. The Lothians Region has also lost a part of Fife as well as the Borders. Now there is a new Fife Region which we never had despite all that was said about the White Paper—no scope for negotiation or change of heart. We have a new Borders Region which was not in the Royal Commission. The Strathclyde we have is not the Wheatley Strathclyde, because, troubled as we were about the Royal Commission's suggestion, we now have that great part of Argyll in Strathclyde. No one can convince me that there is a community of interest between


Tiree, on the one hand, and Troon, on the other—they do not even speak the same language.

Mr. Galbraith: Surrounded by the sea.

Mr. Ross: One is surrounded by the sea. I will come to the hon. Gentleman later. I do not know whether it is fair to attack him because he has enough on his plate. Not only did he disagree with me but I gather he disagreed with a former Member for Pollok, who rejoices in the name of Lord Strathclyde and is his own father, in respect of the attitude he is adopting.
The changes have already been made and are enough to make John Wheatley turn in his bench. The changes that have been made have run counter to the underlying important assumptions of the Royal Commission, such as strategic planning, social cohesion and viability. All these have been thrown overboard in respect of these changes and the strange thing is that the one place that was the subject of greatest controversy is the one place in respect of which the Secretary of State digs in his heels.
I know that this is a difficult and complex problem, but if we have to depart from Wheatley to meet the peculiar needs of the Western Isles or Orkney and Shetland, surely we could have departed to a certain extent in respect of the largest area of local government, the suggested Strathclyde Region. When I looked at what Wheatley suggested, I began to wonder whether the Secretary of State thought that it was the MacDonald Report, because if the Wheatley Report has not been massacred it has certainly been fairly well mauled.
Let us look at what is being suggested. I know that it will take a long time to reach the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur), but there is still hope for him. We tried both in Committee and on Report to meet the need that there are certain functions in local government, such as strategic planning, including strategic housebuilding, major roads, ports and the rest of it, and it may be that we shall require an authority to deal with that on a broader scale. However, we should not allow the need for that to be done to destroy the possi-

bility of getting something that we could still call local government in respect of education and social work. Anyone who can calmly vote for an education authority that will control over 2½ million—half the population of Scotland in one education authority—with more teachers under its control than there are children in some of the other regions—

Mr. Galbraith: Will the right hon. Gentleman direct his mind to the extremely persuasive argument put forward by his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern) on the question of education?

Mr. Ross: I do not accept that by creating a bigger organisation one achieves a better and more efficient service. It is easier to move people about within a smaller area. I wish Glasgow were able to move people about within Glasgow. I wish Ayrshire were able properly to move people about within Ayrshire. The same applies to Renfrewshire. I can assure the hon. Gentleman, from my own experience in education and teaching, that it is a greater problem to move people about over a wide area than when it is broken up into much smaller areas, which are still not very small. The fact is that in every one of these areas there is a problem of maldistribution. If one cannot solve the problem within a limited area, one will not be able to solve it within the greater area.

Mr. Lawson: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it might be an advantage if one got rid of the competing areas, one competing for teachers with another?

Mr. Ross: There is a certain amount of co-operation in this respect at present. I do not know whether my hon. Friend appreciates this, but the areas will still be competing. The problem here is what I fear. Many people say they will not teach in Glasgow, which is quite wrong. My own daughter teaches in Glasgow. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire taught in Glasgow. But one of the grave dangers, if we put all the local authorities with problems into one, is that people may try to get out of that area.
It is no accident that the Scottish Office opposed this large area in its evidence before the Royal Commission.


The Secretary of State must know the attitude of the Scottish Education Department. The Minister responsible for education during my term of office was my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan). He has always taken this position. He argued it, and he knows that our arguments were not conclusive at that time. The same applied equally to social work. If there is any service that is personal, any service in which much more local representation is required, where there is someone to give support, it is this kind of service.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston said that such a service can be carried out in this wide area with social security. He will remember that social security did not start on this wide and national field. It started as a local government service, and he will recall the kind of service that his authority gave—he was probably a member of it—in the days when it was called "public assistance". It started as a parish council affair and developed into something else. I warn him of what might well happen here. If such a service can be provided for half the population of Scotland, before we know where we are it will no longer be a local government service. It will be taken over by the central government.

Sir M. Galpern: Will my right hon. Friend agree that we have to look ahead to the possible development of social service? Let us take Glasgow as an example. It has thousands of boarded-out children scattered all over the Highlands, down in Ayrshire over a wide area, probably greater than the proposed Strathclyde Region, together with deserted wives and broken homes. The operation of a regional council could make a greater contribution than Glasgow itself, which has to rely on other authorities to carry out its social work.

Mr. Ross: I had noted the point and my hon. Friend almost answered it himself. He mentioned the Outward Bound school. He knows that most of these schools are outwith what will be the new extended area. The same thing is true of boarded-out children. My hon. Friend knows that many of these boarded-out children are not so much in Ayrshire but that many are in Aberdeenshire, which is one of the welcoming areas for Glasgow

and where a considerable amount of cooperation has built up over a long time. This does not help and co-operation will still be needed between local authorities that are so different.

Sir M. Galpern: I agree that there could well be schools at present such as Glenmore Lodge, which is not within the area, but, surely, looking ahead we could establish similar types of schools that will be required in far greater numbers. We could use far more schools if the education authority had control of the proposed area of Strathclyde.

Mr. Ross: If my hon. Friend looks at the area, he will need to go way beyond Strathclyde in this connection as, indeed, Ayrshire had to go way beyond Ayrshire. There were residential schools covering the whole of Scotland, in the Lothians, in Abington and at West Linton. So his argument does not meet that point, although I appreciate it. My hon. Friend is being almost as troublesome as a back bencher as he was as Chairman in entertaining us during discussions.
7.45 p.m.
We have not given as much importance as it merits to the closeness of the people being governed. The changes to be made will not give the kind of service that should be received. Quality counts, but there is no guarantee of quality here. There is no guarantee of quality in any Act of Parliament, whether it be quality of a Member of Parliament or quality of a councillor.
I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire in his castigation of Glasgow. Many of us who had responsibilities for governing that city with all its problems—many of them an inheritance from an industrial revolution of well over a century ago—would run away from such problems. Those with responsibility now should be supported and not given the sort of treatment some people would like to hand out. I know my hon. Friend was not being entirely serious and there was a certain measure of facetiousness in what he said.
I do not want to give the impression that I am afraid of being swallowed up or dominated by Glasgow. But some of Glasgow's problems are bound to dominate this new council; it would be


wrong if they did not. We should take the chance of breaking it up and preserving a much more wieldy local government set-up. The size is unmanageable. The imbalance sticks out so clearly compared with the rest of Scotland—and changes cannot be made for the rest of Scotland without affecting what happens in this area. The changes we have made make it even more ludicrous to risk having such a large area.
I believe that this should be a blueprint for democracy. In respect of police and fire services—in respect of fire services it runs counter to what Holroyd suggested—I think that the area is too large. The close connections essential for the personal services are being sacrificed for a principle that was thrown overboard by the Secretary of State himself. It is difficult to maintain a position in respect of Strathclyde and estuarial planning for the Clyde when it is being thrown away in respect of the Tay and the Forth, and thrown away deliberately by the Secretary of State.
There is a false assumption that size will give us efficiency. Even if it could, I doubt if it could give a feeling of participation to the local people themselves. For this reason, I prefer what has been suggested in another place.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he did not want the power of being able to combine—that it was an unlimited power. He did not have time to look at it very carefully, because, even as he is proposing amendments here, he could have proposed amendments to write in conditions and qualifications as to whom he would consult and how it would be carried out.
I do not think that the power to combine or the power to get together in the hands of the Secretary of State is unworkable. I think it could have worked, and it would have been more satisfactory if he had taken time out in order to suggest amendments. I sincerely hope that the Government will still think about this problem.
One of the great weaknesses of the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston was in saying that it may be wrong but let us come back to it in four years' time. It will not be working in four years' time. It will only just be getting going. They

will be floundering. I do not want us to flounder for ten years and then come back.
It would have been worth while in February 1971 for the Government to have had real negotiations and discussions, being prepared to have open minds. Now, at the very last minute, they have allowed their minds to be pushed in respect of Glasgow and pushed in a way which I cannot support, because I think it is a bit of party-political push they have been given. If they had kept open minds from 1971, we might have reached a solution for Strathclyde. I am not happy about the position.

Mr. Galbraith: The right hon. Gentleman has made two allegations of gerrymandering. How can he explain why the Tory councillors in Glasgow wish to have in Glasgow the areas which my right hon. Friend wishes to exclude from Glasgow?

Mr. Ross: I am not accusing them of gerrymandering. I am accusing the Government of gerrymandering and listening to people on the periphery.

Mr. Galbraith: My right hon. Friend has to listen to somebody.

Mr. Ross: I wish that he would listen to the House, and I wish that he would listen in time. Had the right hon. Gentleman listened in time, we should not have had this Strathclyde Bill being wished upon an unwilling West of Scotland. There is no doubt about that.
I understand the feelings of my hon. Friends from Glasgow. I am not speaking in an official capacity. I am speaking for myself and for colleagues in the West of Scotland who feel the same way as I do. I am not forcing anyone into the Lobby with me. I ask people to make up their own minds on this issue.
The Government have bungled this from start to finish, and the Secretary of State has no right to be proud of what is being done so late and in such a way that if we disagree with the Lords there is no more time to reconsider it, because we are at the end of the Session.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Perhaps I may deal first with that last point. The reason for us having to deal with these stages of the Bill in the last two weeks of this Session is that the Bill did not reach the other place until June.

Mr. Robert Hughes: rose—

Mr. Campbell: Not now because I have a great deal more to say about it. With the leave of the House I shall reply briefly to the points which have been raised. 
On the last point, it is not our wish that we should be dealing with stages so soon after each other, but we have to finish the Bill by the end of this Session, which is this week.
When a lot of time was being taken in Committee—we thought a lot more than was necessary—the Opposition should have realised that this would automatically be the result. It unfortunately, has meant compressing the stages—

Mr. Robert Hughes: rose—

Mr. Campbell: I shall come to what the hon. Gentleman said about this in a minute. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan), has had consistent views. I recognise what the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said, that a Minister who has been dealing with the educational side of the problem has, naturally, been concerned about the prospect of administering education in such a large region. In the same way, Ministers have discussed all this in the Scottish Office, and all the pros and cons have been considered. We came to the conclusion—which apparently, according to Lord Hughes, the previous Government were coming to as well—that the Wheatley proposal was, on balance, the best, even taking account of those considerations of education and personal services.
When the hon. Member referred to Amendment No. 9 and the new and unusual power which it is proposed to give to the Secretary of State to force the four regions to combine on almost any subject, he appeared to accept this as a reasonable alternative to the proposal put forward by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton.
I believe that is an undesirable new power to give to a Minister. I made that clear, and I make it clear again. I do not think that suddenly putting together a completely new kind of structure, all depending upon this central power of the Minister, is something upon which we can take a snap decision today.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton also referred to planning in the area of the region and said that problems connected with, for example, hypermarkets, would have to be called in and dealt with by the Secretary of State. I do not believe that that is so. I know that there are planning problems now concerning hypermarkets and other applications on that scale, but if there were a regional planning authority for the whole of the Strathclyde area it would not be necessary for them to be called in. As the hon. Gentleman said they may, in some cases, have to go to a public inquiry and perhaps come to the Secretary of State on appeal but he would not have to call them in the way that has to be done at present—I believe unnecessarily.

Mr. Galbraith: This is an important matter. My right hon. Friend is not saying that he will not call in anything; he just thinks that applications may not have to be called in.

Mr. Campbell: I am saying that because there are so many planning authorities crowded into a comparatively small area and interests conflict, as my hon. Friend and others have said, it is not at present possible for a planning proposal to be considered by a regional authority covering a wide enough area. That is where some of the difficulties and disputes arise. Hon. Members have brought this point out in debate in the House.
The hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. John Smith) said that he would advocate more Government intervention in the affairs of local authorities. If I understood him aright, the hon. Gentleman thinks that central Government could and should intervene and take a greater part in local affairs than they do now. Where national policy needs to be described and stipulated, and guidance given, that is so, but, on the whole, in individual situations in different parts of Scotland, we want the local authorities and the new organisations, so far as possible, to be able to work out solutions themselves. That is the principle to which we adhere.
The hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) recognised the differences and disputes that can occur. He was one of those who pointed out that if there are


a number of authorities in this area which may not all have the same view, projects which are decided on to make progress will get held up because agreement cannot be reached. A planning area covering the whole of Strathclyde would enable disputes and difficulties to be eliminated on the spot by the planning authority which could settle such matters within the region, and it would not require the central Government to try to knock the authorities' heads together or make progress in some other way, which both Governments have had to do in recent years.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) hit the nail on the head when he said that there was a fear of domination from Glasgow. He said that in Argyllshire and other parts of the proposed region there is an apprehension about domination from Glasgow. I know that it is there. My right hon. Friend is right. He clearly assessed the situation and the choice before us, but I do not believe that there is a reason for that fear.
Quite apart from anything else, the region proposed by the Wheatley Commission will have many more people out-with Glasgow than within the city, whatever the city boundaries are to be. One recognises the fear, but I think that one must dispel it. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) made the same point, and I agree entirely.
I notice that both my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend, who have considered these matters seriously from the point of view of the whole reorganisation of local government and of their constituencies, have, like me, come to the same conclusions about the best course to adopt when the moment arises for a decision. We cannot go on arguing about this for another year or two.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Is it not the case that, quite apart from the false basis for this fear that Glasgow will dominate, following the preliminary evidence of committees and meetings of people concerned with the formation of the region there are those, not in Glasgow, who are banding together to do down the Glasgow people, which is a quite wrong way of approaching this matter? There is not only the fear of domination by Glas-

gow, but the fear of Glasgow Members, and it says a great deal for them that they are still willing to support the Strathclyde Region which may, in the initial stages, be anti-Glasgow.

Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that this kind of fear promotes another fear, but I think it will be dispelled because at present it is psychological. I hope that as soon as these organisations start working together they will make progress instead of fighting each other, which is what has been happening very often in the past. This is the sort of thing which I believe will be dispelled, because it is psychological. But as soon as these organisations start working together I hope that they will make progress instead of fighting each other, which is what has happened very often in the past.
8.0 p.m.
The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Baxter) again made it clear that he is against the Wheatley principles altogether and therefore against the Bill. At this stage I cannot comment further on the hon. Gentleman's speech. The hon. Members for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) and South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) again explained clearly their views on the subject. We have listened to their case before and I shall not go over all the points again. I recognise the Ayrshire point of view. None the less, I believe that the course we propose is the best one.

Mr. John Robertson: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government are against Wheatley except where it concerns Strathclyde? None of the Wheatley proposals has been accepted except for Strathclyde, which the Government are pushing. For every other part of Scotland, Wheatley has not been accepted by the Government.

Mr. Campbell: I entirely disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I suggest that he is giving a completely false impression because, if we consider the Wheatley Report, what has happened is that almost all the proposals were accepted in the debate on the report. In this Bill we have concentrated on four or five important issues where differences existed. We must not allow that to obscure the


fact that on the whole most of the Wheatley Report has been accepted.
The situation is different from that in England and Wales, where the Royal Commissions Report was departed from considerably. Although the myth has been built up that the Government would inflexibly drive through the Wheatley proposals, we made it clear that this was not so. It was the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes)—who has disappeared at the moment, but to whom I should have been prepared to give way—who told us at the beginning of Committee that the Government would bulldoze the Bill through without changes. We made it clear then, at the outset, that we had carried out many consultations, that we had made changes and that we were ready to make further changes if convinced by argument, and we accepted changes during the Bill's passage. The myth which the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North was busy building with the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) was indeed a myth and we have made it clear by our actions that we have exploded it.
The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock has thrown doubt on the method of dealing with the Bill if the Lords amendment concerning Strathclyde is rejected, as I hope it will be. He asserted that this was being done in an unprecedented way. I have with me amendments in the same form as those put forward by the right hon. Gentleman in his own name for the Land Commission Bill in 1967. The right hon. Gentleman moved
That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment
and then proceeded to move amendments to the words so restored to the Bill.
Not only is there a precedent, but I have two amendments put forward in the right hon. Gentleman's own name in which this was done. I want to make the matter clear because some hon. Members have expressed anxiety about what will happen if the amendment is rejected. In our amendments to be taken later, relating to the subject, we have followed precedents which the right hon. Gentleman himself set.
Concerning the debate on the periphery of Glasgow, which is within the Strath-

clyde Region and which we shall shortly debate in full, the right hon. Gentleman spoke about that as if it were something which had been done politically by the Government. But the amendments were put down by Lord Hughes, he moved them and they were supported. The noble Lord was on the Front Bench and a former Minister of State in the Scottish Office in the Labour Government. Let us have no more of that nonsense. That was an amendment moved by the Front Bench in the other place and it was supported there.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Is the Secretary of State talking about this group of amendments or is he talking about the third group of amendments, in which case I have no objection to what he says? If he is talking about the first group of amendments, I respectfully suggest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the right hon. Gentleman is not in order.

Mr. Campbell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The matter was raised in the debate and I therefore felt that I ought to deal with it. Although the other amendments will be reached and debated separately, they are directly linked with this issue and hon. Members raised the question about whether the procedure should be followed and whether precedents existed. The matter will arise if the Lords amendment under discussion is rejected, as I hope it will be. That is why I dealt with the matter.

Dr. Mabon: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker said this afternoon that the selection of amendments and the behaviour of the Government had no precedent. He said that he, as Speaker, was willing to set a precedent. I would appeal to the OFFICIAL REPORT to support me in that. Mr. Speaker implied that there were no precedents to the proposals specifically mentioned in amendments (g) and (h) by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross).
I submit, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we are debating the procedural merits or otherwise of group 3 when we should be discussing group 1. If, however, the Secretary of State persists in this, we must make it clear that he is setting a precedent.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): I have listened carefully to


the debate. My understanding was clear. The right hon. Gentleman was seeking to explain a point. I hope that he will not continue in the same vein.

Mr. Campbell: I completed it and merely thought, when giving way to the hon. Gentleman, that he would have something to add concerning Glasgow, which is part of the discussion on Strathclyde. Having had a full debate, and having heard again in a more concise form the arguments deployed in the House on previous occasions, I advise hon. Members to reject the amendment.

Mr. John Robertson: There are one or two points that should be corrected for the record. First, in Committee there was no whip on the Opposition side and a—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not strictly in relation to the amendment and not a matter for the House.

Mr. Robertson: It is an answer to what has been said, with respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The time taken in Committee, the time left to discuss this question now, the way in which we are involved, the lack of information, the fact

that we could not have the amendments before us in order to table amendments to them all arise from this point. The Government created most of the trouble in Committee and took up a great deal of time with their own amendments. That should be said and placed on record.

The amendments we are discussing and the others to follow had the support of the Secretary of State's noble Friends in another place. The opposition to him today comes from his side, and yet the people who have voiced that opposition are not in their places. One can only presume they have been whipped into line. I came here in some doubt today because I do not like the amendment as it has come from the other place. I was prepared to consider voting, at least in regard to this part of the discussion, for the Government. But the right hon. Gentleman's attitude and the attitude of his hon. Friends are such that I shall support the amendment.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 152, Noes 79.

Division No. 213.]
AYES
[8.10 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Jessel, Toby


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Dean, Paul
Jopling, Michael


Astor, John
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Atkins, Humphrey
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Drayson, Burnaby
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Bell, Ronald
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kinsey, J. R.


Bennett, James(Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Emery, Peter
Kirk, Peter


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Eyre, Reginald
Kitson, Timothy


Benyon, W.
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Knox, David


Biffen, John
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lane, David


Body, Richard
Fookes, Miss Janet
Lawson, George


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Fortescue, Tim
Le Marchant, Spencer


Bray, Ronald
Fowler, Norman
Longden, Sir Gilbert


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Fox, Marcus
Luce, R. N.


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Galpern, Sir Myer
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Gibson-Watt, David
MacArthur, Ian


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Gower, Raymond
McLaren, Martin


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Green, Alan
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Bryan, Sir Paul
Grieve, Percy
Mather, Carol


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mawby, Ray


Buchanan-Smith, AlicK (Angus,N&amp;M)
Grylls, Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Gummer, J. Selwyn
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Campbell,Rt.Hn.G.(Moray &amp; Nairn)
Gurden, Harold
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Carmichael, Neil
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Chapman, Sydney
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Moate, Roger


Churchill, W. S.
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Money, Ernie


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Haselhurst, Alan
Monro, Hector


Clegg, Walter
Havers, Sir Michael
Montgomery, Fergus


Cooke, Robert
Hawkins, Paul
Neave, Airey


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Holland, Philip
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Cormack, Patrick
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Costain, A. P.
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Critchley, Julian
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Crouch, David
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)




Parkinson, Cecil
Speed, Keith
Waddington, David


Percival, Ian
Spence, John
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Pink, R. Bonner
Sproat, Iain
Ward, Dame Irene


Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Stainton, Keith
Weatherill, Bernard


Proudfoot, Wilfred
Stanbrook, Ivor
Weitzman, David


Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Sutcliffe, John
Wiggin, Jerry


Rodgers, Willlam(Stockton-on-Tees)
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Russell, Sir Ronald
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Younger, Hn. George


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)



Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Tilney, Sir John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Simeons, Charles
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
Mr. Oscar Murton and


Small, William
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Mr. Hamish Gray.





NOES



Ashton, Joe
Harper, Joseph
Moyle, Roland


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
O'Halloran, Michael


Baxter, William
Hatton, F.
O'Malley, Brian


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Huckfield, Leslie
Orbach, Maurice


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Oswald, Thomas


Brown, Robert C.(N'c'tle-u-Tyne,W.)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Prescott, John


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hunter, Adam
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Roper, John


Coleman, Donald
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Concannon, J. D.
Judd, Frank
Skinner, Dennis


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Kaufman, Gerald
Steel, David


Dalyell, Tarn
Lambie, David
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Loughlin, Charles
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Dempsey, James
McBride, Neil
Stott, Roger


Doig, Peter
McElhone, Frank
S'rang, Gavin


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Machin, George
Tope, Graham


Eadie, Alex
Mackenzie, Gregor
Torney, Tom


Edelman, Maurice
McNamara, J. Kevin
Wallace, George


Ellis, Tom
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Evans, Fred
Marsden, F.
Whitlock, William


Ewing, Harry
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlingon)
Mendelson, John
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Gilbert, Dr. John
Mikardo, Ian
Woof, Robert


Gourlay, Harry
Millan, Bruce



Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mitchell.Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire.W)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Molloy, William
Mr. John Smith and


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Mr. James Sillars.


Hardy, Peter
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendment disagreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 73, In page 151, line 21, column 2, leave out "Ettrick Forest" and insert "Ettrick and Lauderdale"

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Younger.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we shall discuss Lords amendment No. 74; in page 151, line 39, column 2, leave out "Merse" and insert "Berwickshire"

Mr. David Steel: After the hon. Gentleman's detailed opening explanation, I hesitate to speak but there is one point on which I should like to seek the Under-Secretary of State's assurance. I am not happy with the change of name proposed for what was the Ettrick Forest

district. I am unhappy for two reasons. First, the name Ettrick and Lauderdale does, not accurately describe the area. If one were to give an accurate description it would be Ettrick, Yarrow, Gala Water and Lauderdale, but I think that not even the local authorities or the hon. Gentleman suggest that we should give a district a name like that, although at least it would be accurate. But what we have got is a long and clumsy name which is not even an accurate description.

I do not want the hon. Gentleman to tell me which town councils said this, that or the other, but in view of the change of name from Merse back to Berwickshire and as the boundaries of Peebles-shire are not being altered, there is a strong case for sticking to the original four county names, as we seem to be heading back in that direction. Although these are boundary changes as between the old Selkirkshire and the new Ettrick and Lauderdale district, they do not seem to be so substantial as to warrant a change of name at all. I cannot put forward an


alternative because we are merely discussing a Lords amendment.

The Bill elsewhere contains a provision for an authority, once assembled, to submit to the Secretary of State a proposal for a change of name, but is it competent for an authority once elected to submit a request to the Secretary of State for a change of name during the provisional year after the election and before it actually comes into being? There does not seem much point in having a continuing debate on these names after operation has started, but it would be reasonably useful to suggest that where there is still disquiet about the name in a district then, as part of the year's preparation, the authority may submit to the Secretary of State a proposal for a change. Will the Secretary of State consider sympathetically any such submissions which may be made?

The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): I am sorry if I unduly curtailed my earlier remarks. I did not know whether the House generally would wish to discuss this point. I will not go into details of who is in favour of which names. We have tried wherever we could to listen carefully to opinion in the areas and have tried wherever we could to go along with local views. In most cases we have managed to do it.
The hon. Gentleman has made a substantial point. Certainly a new authority, once elected, is at liberty to make suggestions about its name to my right hon. Friend. He will look at any request with great sympathy, although I cannot undertake that any change of name would necessarily be accepted. Although there can never be finality on such matters, we should agree to leave it as another place decided. With that assurance, I hope the hon. Member will feel happy.

Mr. Ross: I am glad to support the Government on this Lords amendment. It is fine to know that the hon. Gentleman did consult local opinion. I wish the same had been true of other amendments. It was reassuring to find Berwickshire and not Berkshire as printed in the Lords Report, replacing Merse.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 75: In page 151, line 43, at end inert—

"Greater Glasgow


City of Glasgow



The county of the city of Glasgow.



In the county of Lanark—in the Ninth district, the electoral divisions of Baillieston, Garrowhill, Mount Vernon and Carmyle, Springboig.


Rutherglen
In the county of Lanark—the burgh of Rutherglen; in the Eighth district, the electoral divisions of Bankhead, Cambuslang Central, Cambuslang North, Hallside, Rutherglen, and those parts of Cambuslang South and Carmunnock electoral divisions lying out-with the designated area of East Kilbride New Town.


Eastwood
In the county of Renfrew—the First district.


Kilpatricks
In the county of Dunbarton—the burghs of Bearsden, Clydebank, Milngavie; the district of Old Kilpatrick (except the electoral divisions of Bowling, Dunbarton).


Lanarkshire



Strathkelvin
In the county of Dunbarton—the burghs of Cumbernauld, Kirkintilloch; the district of Kirkintilloch and Cumbernauld.



In the county of Lanark—in the Ninth district, the electoral divisions of Chryston, Stepps; the burgh of Bishopbriggs.



In the county of Stirling—the burgh of Kilsyth; the Western No. 3 district; the electoral division of Kilsyth West; the polling district of Kilsyth East (Banton).


Monklands
In the county of Lanark—the burghs of Airdrie, Coat-bridge; the Ninth district (except the electoral divisions of Baillieston, Cryston, Garrowhill, Mount Vernon and Carmyle, Springboig, Stepps); in the Seventh district, the electoral division of Shottskirk.


Motherwell
In the county of Lanark—the burgh of Motherwell and Wishaw; the Sixth district (except the electoral divisions of Bothwell and Uddingston South, Uddingston North), the Seventh district (except the electoral division of Shottskirk).

Hamilton
In the county of Lanark—the burgh of Hamilton; the Fourth district (except the electoral division of Avon-dale); in the Sixth district, the electoral divisions of Bothwell and Uddingston South, Uddingston North; in the Eighth district, the electoral divisions of Blantyre, Stonefield, and that part of High Blantyre electoral division lying outwith the designated area of East Kilbride New Town.


East Kilbride
In the county of Lanark—the burgh of East Kilbride; in the Fourth district, the electoral division of Avondale; in the Eighth district, those parts of High Blantyre, Cambuslang South, and Carmunnock electoral divisions lying within the designated area of East Kilbride New Town.


Lanark
In the county of Lanark—the burghs of Biggar, Lanark; the First, Second, Third districts.


Argyll and Clyde



Dumbarton
 In the county of Dunbarton—the burghs of Dumbarton, Cove and Kilcreggan, Helens-burgh; the districts of Helensburgh, Vale of Leven; the electoral divisions of Bowling, Dunbarton.


Renfrew
In the county of Renfrew—the burghs of Ban-head, John-stone, Paisley, Renfrew; the Second. Third, Fourth districts.


Inverclyde
In the county of Renfrew—the burghs of Gourock, Greenock. Port Glasgow; the Fifth district.


Argyll
In the county of Argyll—the burghs of Campbeltown, Dunoon, Inveraray, Lochgilphead, Oban, Tobermory; the districts of Cowal, Islay, Jura and Colonsay, Kintyre, Mid Argyll, Mull, North Lorn (except the electoral divisions of Ballachulish, Kinlochleven), South Lorn, Tiree and Coll.



In the county of Bute—the burgh of Rothsay; the district of Bute.


Ayrshire and Arran



Cunninghame
In the county of Ayr—the burghs of Ardrossan, Irvine. Kilwinning, Largs, Saltcoats, Stevenston; the districts of Irvine, Kilbirnie, West Kilbride; those parts of the designated area of Irvine New Town within the Ayr and Kilmarnock districts.

In the county of Bute—the burgh of Millport; the districts of Arran, Cumbrae.


Kyle and and Loudoun
In the county of Ayre—the burghs of Darvel, Galston, Kilmarnock, Newmilns and Greenholm, Stewarton; the district of Kilmarnock (except that part of the designated area of Irvine New Town within this district).


Kyle and Carrick
In the county of Ayre—the burghs of Ayr, Girvan, Maybole, Prestwick, Troon; the districts of Ayr (except that part of the designated area of Irvine New Town within this district), Girvan, Maybole; that part of the parish of Ayr within the district of Dalmellington; the polling district of Coylton.


Cumnock and Doon Valley
In the county of Ayr—the burghs of Cumnock and Holmhead; the districts of Cumnock, Dalmellington (except that part of the parish of Ayr within this district; the polling district of Coylton)."

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment, we shall take Lords Amendment No. 76, and the following amendments to the words proposed to be restored to the Bill:

(a) in page 152, column 3, leave out lines 16 to 20.
(b) in page 152, line 21, column 3, leave out from ' Lanark ' to ' in' in line 29.
(c) in page 152, line 21, column 3, leave out ' burghs ' and insert ' burgh '.
(d) in page 152, line 22, column 3, leave out ' Bishopbriggs '.
(e) in page 152, column 3, leave out lines 33 to 35.
(f) in pace 152, line 35, at end insert:

Rutherglen
In the county of Lanark—the burgh of Rutherglen; in the Eighth district, the electoral divisions of Bankhead, Cambuslang Central, Cambuslang North, Hallside, Rutherglen, and those parts of Cambuslang South and Carmunnock electoral divisions lying out-with the designated area of East Kilbride New Town '

(g) in page 152, line 35, at end insert:


Kilpatricks
In the county of Dunbarton—the burghs of Bearsden, Clydebank, Milngavie; the district of Old Kilpatrick (except the electoral divisions of Bowline, Dunbarton).

(h) in page 152, columns 2 and 3, leave out lines 36 to 47 and insert—


' Clydebank
In the county of Dunbarton—the burgh of Clydebank; the district of Old Kilpatrick (except the electoral divisions of Bowling, Dunbarton, and that part of the electoral division of Hardgate lying within the parish of New Kilpatrick).


Bearsden and Milngavie
In the county of Dunbarton—the burghs of Bearsden, Milngavie; that part of the electoral division of Hard-gate lying within the parish of New Kilpatrick.


Bishopbriggs and Kirkintilloch
In the county of Dunbarton—the burgh of Kirkintilloch; those parts of the electoral divisions of Twechar and Waterside lying outwith the designated area of Cumbernauld New Town.



In the county of Lanark—the burgh of Bishopbriggs; the electoral divisions of Chryston, Stepps.



In the county of Stirling—the Western No. 3 district.



In the county of Dunbarton—the burgh of Cumbernauld; the electoral division of Croy and Dullatur and those parts of the electoral divisions of Twechar and Waterside lying within the designated area of Cumbernauld New Town.



In the county of Stirling—the burgh of Kilsyth; the electoral division of Kilsyth West; the polling district of Kilsvth East (Banton).'

(i) in page 158, columns 2 and 3, leave out lines 36 to 47 and insert—


'Strathkelvin
In the county of Dunbarton—the burghs of Cumbernauld, Kirkintilloch; the district of Kirkintilloch and Cumbernauld.



In the county of Lanark—in the Ninth district, the electoral divisions of Chryston, Stepps; the burgh of Bishopbriggs.



In the county of Stirling—the burgh of Kilsyth; the Western No. 3 district; the electoral division of Kilsyth West; the polling district of Kilsyth East (Banton).'

(j) in page 153, line 10, column 2, leave out ' Cadzow ' and insert ' Hamilton '.
(k) in page 153, column 3, leave out lines 29 and 30.
(l) in page 153, line 30, columns 2 and 3, at end insert—

'Eastwood
In the county of Renfrew—the First district.'

(m) in page 154, line 13, column 3, at end insert—
' that part of the parish of Ayr within the district of Dalmellington; the polling district of Coylton '.

(n) in page 154, line 16, column 3, at end insert:
'(except that part of the parish of Ayr within this district; the polling district of Coylton)'.

Amendments (a), (c), (d), (e), (h), and (j) to (n) stand in the name of the Secretary of State; amendments (b) and (f) in the name of the hon. Member for Ruther-glen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie); and amendments (g) and (i) in the name of the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. McCartney).

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could you clarify the situation? What will the first vote be in this series of amendments? Will it be on Amendment (n) or Lords Amendment No. 75?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant Ferris): The Question will be, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Brown: That may be the Question, but what is it about? I am sure other hon. Members are in a similar position. There could be a series of votes or there might only need to be one. But will the first vote be on Amendment (n) or on Lords Amendment No. 75?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As I understand the position, with Lords Amendment No. 75 it seems to be the wish of the House that we should discuss Lords Amendment No. 76 with Amendments (a) to (n). Perhaps the hon. Gentleman's difficulties will thereby be resolved in due course.

Mr. Brown: I am asking which amendment will be called first for the purposes of the first vote. This is important.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: When we get to it I am advised that the first question will be decided on Amendment (a).

Mr. Bruce Millan: What my hon. Friend is asking is whether we shall first vote on the Lords Amendment No. 75 and then Lords Amendment No. 76, and then go through from Amendments (a) to (n) or whatever it is after that. Do we take Lords Amendments Nos. 75 and 76 first and then go on to Amendments (a) to (n)?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is correct in everything he said.

Mr. Younger: Perhaps I could start by reiterating, in what I hope will be easily understood language, that we are now discussing Lords Amendments Nos. 75 and 76 and the Amendments (a) to (n), and that the votes, when they come, will first be on Lords Amendments No. 75 and 76 and thereafter in order on the amendments put down to those Lords amendments. I think that is exactly what you said, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I am asking the House to disagree with Lords Amendments Nos. 75 and 76. I shall ask the House in due course to agree with the Lords in amendments which follow and which have my right hon. Friend's name to them. I hope that leaves everyone in the House clear as to what we are discussing and in what order.

Mr. Ross: We are not discussing any amendments in the right hon. Gentleman's name that agree with the Lords. As far as I know, we are disagreeing, then we are disagreeing, and then the hon. Gentleman is proposing amendments to the words of the Bill as it left this place.

Mr. Younger: The right hon. Gentleman is correct. What I am asking the House to do is to agree to the amendments in the name of my right hon. Friend. But the right hon. Gentleman is right to point out that at that stage they will not be Lords amendments. The headmaster has put me firmly in my place, as usual. I shall do a hundred lines and try to show them to the headmaster in the morning. But I think the rest of the House is perfectly clear as to what I said. Having said that, I should like to give the background and the reasons for what I am asking the House to do.
Lords Amendment No. 75 is a corollary to the replacement on the Report stage in the Lords of the Strathclyde region with four separate regions, which

the House has just decided to reject. The structure of districts which it entails provides for separate Kilpatricks and Eastwood districts, for the inclusion of Bishopbriggs in the Strathkelvin district—these changes were agreed in the Lords Committee—and for the creation of a separate district comprising Rutherglen and Cambuslang. The Government's amendments, following the proposed disagreement to Lords Amendment No. 75, seek to form separate Clydebank and Bearsden and Milngavie districts, which taken together correspond with the Kilpatricks district, at present before us, and Bishopbriggs and Kirkintilloch and Cumbernauld districts, and to create an Eastwood district. It is proposed in this set of amendments that Rutherglen and Cambuslang should remain in the Glasgow district.
8.30 p.m.
I think it will be evident to everybody in the House that Lords Amendment No. 75 is drafted on the basis of the existence of four regions in the West of Scotland. With the restoration of the Strathclyde region, which the House has decided, the amendment immediately becomes defective. I make no more of it and merely record that fact. But apart from any technical defects, the Government also believe that the district pattern which it constructs does not adequately meet the needs of the areas around Glasgow. That is why I propose to ask the House to disagree to the Lords Amendments.
We have given very careful consideration indeed to this extremely difficult question of the periphery of Glasgow, in the light of the comments that have been expressed in this House, in Committee upstairs, in another place and outside, locally and in the Press. Anyone who has studied the Division and voting records at the various stages of this controversy, and who has seen who has voted for what at various stages, will know only too clearly how very difficult it is for people to make up their minds on this complex collection of difficult issues. But the Government and I remain of the view that there has always been, and still is, a strong case for keeping the Glasgow district as it was when we last considered the matter in this House. Nevertheless, it would be idle to pretend that nothing has happened, to imagine


that the question rests now exactly as it did then and that nothing has happened in the interim.

Mr. William Hannan: Why not?

Mr. Younger: I am hoping to explain that in the course of what I am saying. The vote in another place which reversed a great deal of what we had done in this House was not a snap decision or a momentary aberration in the middle of proceedings which did not allow for proper discussion. It had clearly been very thoroughly discussed over many months, both in and out of Parliament. In the light of this, we had to concede that in another place those who spoke certainly had a right to invite the Government and this House at least to think again about the Glasgow district and the problem of the peripheral areas.
The views expressed in another place on the general issue of the Glasgow district were that it was too large and embraced communities which would better stand on their own or be attached to a district other than Glasgow. One of the factors that carried weight with their Lordships—this reflected the popular concern to which I have referred—was the thought that the level of electoral representation would be drastically reduced in the peripheral areas and that this might prejudice the provision and standard of services. Another consideration was that although these areas unquestionably had links with Glasgow—I detailed them at earlier stages of the Bill—it was also thought that they had a distinct community of interest of their own. Finally, it was contended that there was sufficient weight of population and resources on the periphery of Glasgow—unlike the situation in some other cities—to form viable districts. It is obvious to all of us that there is force in each of those arguments and that they have to be looked at.
However, when it came to suggesting an alternative structure, the view taken by another place was that Glasgow should be reduced indiscriminately on every side—north, south, east and west—for the sake of reducing it. I do not think this view has ever prevailed in this House and it is certainly not the Government's view. But on this most difficult issue we believe that, as in other parts of Scotland, proposals for change in district boundaries must be

looked at individually on their merits, having regard to the natural affinities within and between communities, the scope for drawing meaningful boundaries and the scale of the authorities which might result from the changes.
Looking at these aspects—and each of them has to be looked at ad hoc individually on its own merits—we have to try to marry up a lot of conflicting considerations: whether there is community of interest between these areas and Glasgow, whether there is community of interest between the parts of the areas themselves, what are the views of those concerned in those areas and the views of those concerned in Glasgow.
The right thing to do is to consider objectively one by one the changes which another place has sought to make and see whether the case for each is sufficiently cogent, bearing in mind that we shall not necessarily be faced with an answer which is probably right or probably wrong but more probably a balance of advantages and disadvantages.
As I said several times in Committee, I do not believe that these matters are capable of absolute proof one way or the other. Whatever this House decides tonight, I do not believe any of us will be able to say that this or that case was proved. A tremendous amount of opinion comes into this, as one sees when one examines the views expresed in the Press, in the various papers that we have been given, and in this House.
I shall say a word about each of these areas and try to explain outright why I think the solution should be as I have suggested. I deal first with the area known as the Kilpatricks district. We have contended all along, when this area has been discussed at previous stages of the Bill, that a Kilpatricks district itself does not have a great deal to commend it. It has very little internal cohesion, and there is little genuine community of interest between Clydebank on the one hand and Bearsden and Milngavie on the other. It is no easy matter even to get from one side of the proposed district to the other. In Committee I expanded upon this a little and pointed out that I was not aware of a tremendous amount of traffic and movement between these two areas. I was not aware that large numbers of people in Bearsden and Milngavie moved to Clydebank for their recreation,


nor was I aware that people in Clydebank did the reverse movement.
The feeling that this area should not form part of the Glasgow district goes very deep, and that feeling is supported by a considerable number of hon. Members on both sides of this House. It is no use pretending that it is a clearcut solution one way or the other. An amendment in this sense was carried in the Scottish Standing Committee as well as in another place.
There is an obvious dilemma here which neither House has been able to resolve satisfactorily. We in the Government consider that there is an alternative solution which rejects the amendment before us but substitutes two new districts of Clydebank and Bearsden and Milngavie with populations of 59,000 and 36,000 respectively. Of course, the latter is on the low side as the population for a district but it is still comparable in size and resources with some of the other districts in the Strathclyde region.
As regards Strathkelvin, what another place has proposed is that an expanded district taking in Bishopbriggs and Kirkintilloch and Cumbernauld should be set up. Again we recognise the force of the negative side of the equation in that the view that Bishopbriggs should not form part of Glasgow is strongly held and has been vigorously expressed all along. I argued as hard as I could to suggest that there are very strong reasons for suggesting that Bishopbriggs is really part of the genuine Glasgow community. I was disagreed with by another place and with many in this House as well, and this is something which we shall have to consider again. However, it lies closer to the centre of Glasgow than do Bearsden or Clydebank, and the Government believe that in the context of the new structure there are strong arguments for Bishopbriggs going in with Glasgow. Indeed, we think that this would be a preferable solution.
However, in view of what was said in another place and by many hon. Members, we do not consider that the disadvantages of this part of the amendment are so overwhelming as to justify our rejecting it in the teeth of all the objections and the powerful arguments which have been put elsewhere.
To turn for a moment to the positive side, the Government do not think that the proposal simply to add Bishopbriggs to the Strathkelvin district is very satisfactory. It was moved by the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. John Smith) in Committee and was defeated by 19 votes to six. Its drawbacks are obvious. It would create a district with three separate large centres of population, which would definitely be a disuniting factor. Noises have already been heard to suggest that that would be so.
As an alternative, we would prefer to create two separate districts, one comprising Bishopbriggs and Kirkintilloch, between which there is some community of interest, and the other for Cumbernauld along with Kilsyth.
There is, incidentally, a certain affinity here with another amendment which was tabled by the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North in Committee, but which he did not move.

Mr. John Smith: I would like to clear this matter up. I mentioned such an amendment, but the important difference between it and the one proposed by the Government is that Chryston and Stepps are included in what they propose as Bishopbriggs and Kirkintilloch. I never argued that. Nobody suggested it until it arrived like a bolt from the blue as a Government proposal.

Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman did not merely suggest such a thing but put down an amendment. [Interruption.] I accept that.
I did not say that the present amendment was exactly the same. I said that it had a certain affinity with the amendment which the hon. Member put down but did not move. We do not know why he did not move it. He was perfectly entitled not to move it.
What we are putting forward has better boundaries and results in a better size of district than the hon. Gentleman's proposal. It involves Bishopbriggs and Kirkintilloch with a population of around 75,000 and Cumbernauld with something like 50,000, but with prospects of steady growth in the future. These would be quite effective districts and there would in each be what there never was in Strathkelvin, a genuine community of interest.


This is something we should carefully bear in mind.
What I have said about Bishopbriggs also largely applies to Eastwood. We are aware of the strong community spirit epitomised in the present district council in Eastwood. I visited the district three months ago and this was very clear. It is a large and diverse area, ranging from the moorland country on the Ayrshire boundary to Cathcart and Thornliebank on the edge of Glasgow. Our view was, and remains, that there is no clear dividing line between Eastwood and Glasgow and that the better course is to combine them.
The other view, that the present district council area—that is taking in Eaglesham, which we have put with East Kilbride—should become a district on its own had a fair amount of support when the matter was raised in the Scottish Standing Committee and the vote was 10 votes for and 15 against, which was not an overwhelming defeat, and it has prevailed in another place. There was a different judgment involved here. I would not advise the House to resist this part of the amendment. The population of the district would be about 50,000.
8.45 p.m.
I turn now to Rutherglen. The Government's amendment does not specify Rutherglen as it is proposed to leave it, along with Cambuslang, within the Glasgow district. I must refer to it because it is differently treated in the Lords amendment and the House is entitled to an explanation of the Government's attitude on this issue. The proposed Rutherglen district was never fully discussed in another place; it was part of a package that the other place accepted for Strathclyde as a whole. But it was debated in Scottish Standing Committee, which decided by 15 votes to two that Rutherglen and Cambuslang should go with Glasgow.
It is difficult to make out a convincing case for maintaining the separateness of Rutherglen, although the provost and town council have written a letter in which they do their best to do so. The distance between Rutherglen Town Hall and the city chambers is about 2½ miles. The burgh is hemmed in by Glasgow and the proposed new district, almost more, so with the city boundary projecting

at Castlemilk on the west and Shettleston on the north and east.
The links between Rutherglen and Glasgow are far stronger than those on any part of the periphery. For example, people moving house between Rutherglen and Glasgow in the period 1961–66 equalled the total of movements to and from all the remaining parts of the Strathclyde region. The public transport links are striking, with 300 buses a day from Rutherglen to the city centre and 136 train journeys, compared with only 48 from Eastwood and 35 from Bearsden. Rutherglen station is only nine minutes from Central Station. Many more Rutherglen people work in Glasgow than are employed in Rutherglen. Conversely, the number of Glaswegians who come to work in Rutherglen exceeds the number who both live and work in the burgh.

Mr. Edward Taylor: In comparing Rutherglen with Eastwood, and talking about the number of buses and trains, will by hon. Friend bear in mind that not everybody in Eastwood travels to Glasgow by bus and train? Some of the people there have very large cars.

Mr. Younger: I accept that. The same argument would apply to some degree to places such as Bearsden. But the figures are fairly significant in spite of that.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: As the hon. Gentleman places reliance on what was said and done in another place, why did he prejudge the issue of Rutherglen before it has been raised by his noble Friend Lord Selkirk in another place? The decision was taken between the Committee and Report stages. No consideration was given to our case in the other place. The Minister must not mislead us in this way. One of the principal reasons why Rutherglen has been treated differently from the other places is that it did not happen to get the same deal in the House of Lords. It is as simple as that.

Mr. Younger: I made that point a minute or two ago, and it is a fair one. But the most important thing we should do now is to address ourselves to the real issues and the right solution for Rutherglen. I am prepared to accept that we should not be bound by discussions in another place. We must make up our


minds on the merits of the case, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will help us to do so.

Mr. Mackenzie: The Secretary of State has already made up his mind. He made it up during the time between the Committee and Report stages. Although he now says "Let's all make up our minds", the hon. Gentleman knows that his right hon. Friend will be whipping Government Members into the other Lobby.

An Hon. Member: Answer that.

Mr. Younger: There is not much to answer, because that is the way everything is decided here. I see nothing remarkable in it.
We must now try to address ourselves to the merits of the case. If there is a powerful argument based on facts that Rutherglen should not be part of Glasgow, that is what we should be considering. If there are arguments why it should be part of Glasgow, we should be considering them.
It is often said that statistics can prove anything, but to anyone who knows the area the statistics I have given do not tell an untrue story. Lord Shinwell said last week:
I venture to say that Rutherglen is just around the corner. When I lived in Glasgow Rutherglen was part of Glasgow. There were some queer people there, I agree, but it was Glasgow. It was not a hop. step and jump from the Clyde Football Club ground."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. House of Lords, 15th October 1973; Vol. 345, c. 38.]
As many of us know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Shawfield ground is divided between Glasgow and Rutherglen. It is rather difficult to see them as completely separate places.

Mr. Neil Carmichael: The hon. Gentleman's argument is interesting. I understand that there is a house on the border of Clydebank and Glasgow. One part of the house is rated by Clydebank and the other part by Glasgow. We will not get far with that sort of argument.

Mr. Hugh McCartney: rose—

Mr. Younger: None of these arguments, taken by itself, can be taken as

proof. No matter how many journeys I can prove to the House are made between X and Glasgow or Y and Glasgow, in either direction, that is no proof that I am right and that someone else is wrong. We must take the totality of the arguments and make our own judgments. Every hon. Member must do so. There is no other approach.

Mr. McCartney: Why does the hon. Gentleman try to persuade us to support the Government's point of view on the basis of these specious arguments? I was born and brought up in Bridgeton. I supported Clyde, part of which was in Rutherglen and part in Bridgeton. The reason why I supported Clyde was that I did not think it would be worth while to support Celtic or Rangers. Are you suggesting that all the people around the periphery of Glasgow should or should not support the Government on the basis of the team which they support?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. The hon. Gentleman must address the Chair.

Mr. McCartney: I shall address the hon. Gentleman through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that through the support of teams in the periphery of Glasgow we should agree or disagree with the Government on the reorganisation of local government?

Mr. Younger: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I think that no hon. Member thought that was what I was suggesting. If the hon. Gentleman wants to find a team to support, I suggest that he supports Ayr United, which is now a happy thing to do. For reasons which have been described, hon. Members have never felt—this is borne out by our discussions and by the voting which has taken place—that the case for Rutherglen and Cambuslang is in the same category as the case for some other peripheral areas. That justifies the Government in making a distinction now.
The Government cannot pretend to be convinced that all the changes to the Glasgow district which have been proposed in another place are self-evidently right. However, with the further


modifications which are proposed in the Government amendments, we have now arrived at a solution which recognises the strong feeling that these areas should not be part of Glasgow. That is a feeling which I do not altogether share. Having recognised the feeling that these areas should not be part of the Glasgow district, the Government have produced a sensible, viable and logical suggestion which could make sense of Glasgow.
The object of these changes, if we are to recognise that these areas are not to be part of Glasgow, is to produce districts which make sense in themselves, which have a community of interest within themselves and which are not districts botched together with the object of putting them together to make a nice figure on the map, thereby producing districts which do not have an internal community interest.
In some cases, as I have already said, there is a danger that the result might be that some districts will have within them, divisive forces which cannot be successful. This is a most difficult problem. Many solutions have been discussed. Views have been taken in different directions from both sides of the House at every stage. The voting records are fascinating to examine. We must now consider the evidence and make a decision.
The Government have tried their hardest to recognise the freedom of expression. We were trying to do that when the Bill began. We have shown that we are not prepared to be stiff-necked and to ignore completely the views of Parliament. We have tried our best to recognise the views which have been expressed in the House. We have tried to find a solution that will make sense to the districts and will make good district government possible. I urge the House to consider carefully every argument which has been put forward and to proceed as I suggested.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: The kindest thing I can say about the Minister's speech is that it was totally unconvincing. It is just as well that not many hon. Members were on the Government side of the House behind the Front Bench when that speech was delivered. If more Members had

been present they would have been in doubt about which side to support in the Division.
My position is quite clear. I hope that I am also clear about which way I shall vote, in spite of the difficulties involved in following the amendments. I want the Bill to be restored to what it was when it left this House; not to what it was when it left the Committee, but to what it was when it left the House. To that extent I shall take up a few minutes on this very important matter.
One of the main reasons why the matter needs to be debated is that it has not been debated previously in this context. Every other authority and point of view that has been expressed, even in the previous debates, has been based on four years of marshalling the arguments. They have been based on a two-year period since the Government's White Paper was published and on a year of consultation before the White Paper was published.
We are faced here with a situation in which, because the Government have changed their minds at the last minute, three weeks ago, those of us who want the Bill as it was when it left the House have had only three weeks to campaign for that, as against the two, three or four years of everyone else.
The Minister cannot juggle with previous votes and points of view which have been advanced. We must recognise that this has been a complete sell-out by the Government, not to opinion in the House or to the other place but to party-political pressures exerted on the Minister by the Conservative and Unionist Party outside Parliament. The Minister knows that. That is why he has been totally unconvincing.
We are entitled to protest because the facts were all known and argued. I do not know whether I shall influence anyone. I am hopeful that at least some of my hon. Friends who were rightly obsessed with the Strathclyde argument—I disagree with them but I understand why they thought that that was the most important issue—and who have not been paying so much attention to Glasgow and the peripheral problem will support me and some of my hon. Friends when we plead for what is in the best interests of the Glasgow district.
It is important to look back, perhaps for the last time, to what the Wheatley Commission said about the matter. I have been almost blackballed as a Wheatley Commission supporter through and through. We are, however, entitled to remind ourselves that everyone who has looked at the existing Glasgow has found some difficulty about where to put it or what to do with it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) might have some unusual ideas about what to do with Glasgow. But being the size that it is, within either the Strathclyde region or the Greater Glasgow district it presents the fear of the possibility that it might dominate the whole situation. That explains much of the opposition. The Wheatley Commission recognised this and specially mentioned it when speaking of the course that it proposed, which was to enlarge the city boundaries from their present line but only so far as to take in those parts of the hinterland which would be better served and more effectively administered from the city. The report goes on to say that Glasgow is the most difficult to deal with.
9.0 p.m.
Everybody recognises that, and in the appendices to the report there is evidence further to emphasise this. In paragraph 6 of Appendix 12 the case is made:
The total picture, then, is of a city boundary which has remained unchanged for over 30 years".
I do not want to get involved over Rutherglen and Cambuslang, which in general terms were going virtually against almost all I am asking for by taking other authorities out. There is a certain amount of logic in taking them all out; or they all could be in. I am making the positive point that they should be in. However, that paragraph in Appendix 12 says that the picture is of a city boundary which has remained unchanged for over 30 years
during which time changed conditions have enabled citizens and city workers to live in places at a greater distance from the overcrowded city centre. These outlying places, although not physically separated from the city, are cut off from it by the boundary. This prevents their inhabitants from playing their part as citizens of Glasgow and creates an imbalance in the social structure which may be to the disadvantage of the city.
That is absolutely true.
If I put the case in more popular terms some will say that I am suggesting, because middle-class elements can move outside the city, that the city loses the benefit of some of the qualities those people have; I could be misunderstood and the argument could be used against me. I have no middle class in my constituency, but there could be a better social mix in a district, by bringing into a district all the authorities, to make a district which makes sense.
This is an argument which concerns everyone, including the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) whose constituency could equally be involved, if we give the impression that we want more of the middle class in an area—to give leadership, for instance, in Castlemilk. It is not that one class is better than the other but that each has something to contribute towards solving the problems with which we are all concerned. We cannot escape from the problems of vandalism in Drumchapel by hopping into Bearsden. We have to think in terms of an area and of its community as was attempted to be defined by Wheatley.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) quoted the White Paper in connection with Strathclyde, and he was quite right, but I remind the Under-Secretary of what it is to which the Government are committed. There are so many quotations I could make that it is difficult to decide which to make. There was a firm decision by a firm—or was there? There have been consultations for a year and a half, and the time has now come for firm decisions. That is what the Government have said, and they have further said that "We will not change the structure of the boundaries in any significant way." Is the Under-Secretary suggesting that this change here is not a significant change at the last minute? He knows that many authorities have campaigned against it, and were plainly told that it was not on.
There is a point here on which I disagree with my right hon. Friend. The Wheatley Report came out in 1969. There had been discussions with the Labour Government, and they were followed by discussions with the present Government. I am not trying to commit anybody to anything, but I do not think that there was any shadow of doubt that most of the


peripheral authorities got the message that they were likely to remain in some kind of Glasgow district. They are in it whether they like it or not. No one had any reason to think that the Government or any strong body of opinion, other than in some of the smaller authorities, would favour any departure from the broad principles I have stated.
In Committee, the Under-Secretary gave the impression—I hope he will take this as a compliment—that he believed in what he was saying at that stage. Does he still believe in it? If he does, who has made the change? Has he been overruled by the Secretary of State for political purposes? Either he should resign or the Secretary of State should resign. Somebody should move over and give the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) a chance because, as far as I can see, he is the man who has accomplished this on behalf of the Conservative Party.
In face of some of the arguments put forward by the Under-Secretary in Committee, it is totally unconvincing of him now to read from his brief that he has changed his mind, or that there is some new argument which he had previously not heard.
The Government have been fair. In Committee they were defeated. The Under-Secretary said that he did not agree with the Opposition in wishing to hive off peripheral authorities and that the Committee would be wrong to accept that argument. When they were defeated, they said they would reconsider the argument and that, if the Opposition had any new ideas to put to them, they would be prepared to consider them. They were defeated and had to look at them.
I remind the House that a month later, having considered the argument, the Government returned with their proposals, and the House by an overwhelming majority justified what was originally proposed. So where has the pressure come from—from this House or the other House? Out of three Labour Lords, two were for and one against. There is nothing there to guide Opposition Members. We had to make up our own minds. Here we have an abysmal retreat by the Government. We all know that it is a retreat from sound principles, well argued at length in Committee, and for

what? For political purposes, without the shadow of a doubt, and everybody knows it.
I got into trouble with some of my hon. Friends because I suggested that there was party-political pressure being brought to bear on some of us and hon. Members on the Government benches. Their pressures have been more successful, or they work better than we do on our side, perhaps because they have persuaded or threatened. I almost feel sorry for the Secretary of State. I cannot put the boot in when I see somebody who is so ineffective and helpless as he has been in local government. He is tragic, but perhaps, pathetically, he feels that he is at least doing something for the party. That is the most charitable thing I can find to say. I can see nothing that would have convinced him to change his mind three weeks ago in the way that he has.
I know that it is a difficult case. I know the feeling in the small burghs and in the authorities. They have a tremendous pride, quite rightly so, in their community. They have been frightened for two reasons. They have been frightened because they think—and with some justification, though I cannot commit any future Greater Glasgow district—that there should be another look at the basis of representation. No matter what is done for this area, I genuinely believe that it will always be a Labour-controlled authority. That is why some people want out of it. The only ones who are getting out are the Tory-controlled authorities. [HON. MEMBERS: "Clydebank."] Yes, I know, but there is a reason for that. Nobody wants Clydebank.

Mr. Robert Hughes: My hon. Friend wanted it in the Standing Committee.

Mr. Brown: I still want it, but I am still willing to take in the Tory areas of Bearsden and Milngavie as well. When we were arguing about this, I genuinely understood the fear on the part of some of these smaller authorities, though I do not think that that is an argument to which we should attach great weight. But we should at least understand it so that we can perhaps do something about it.
I cannot commit anybody to anything, but I am willing to suggest that we might all have needed to sit down in the future and look at the representations to see


whether there should have been more members or fewer members, covering different wards or whatever. That could always have been done.
The second matter that worried people—I hope I do not offend anybody when I say this—is that it is a well-known fact that many people escaped from Glasgow at one time because they were going into low-rated areas. Everyone knows that People would say "I will buy a house in Renfrewshire because it has the lowest rates." It gave the poorest services, but that is another argument.

Mr. John Robertson: The very lowest rates

Mr. Brown: If my hon. Friend insists, the very lowest rates, but it did not give any great service. Nevertheless, this was a factor, and many people still believe that if they have anything to do with Glasgow they will face increased rating burdens. Even the housing finance account, as the Minister knows—if he had stuck to his guns he could have justified even that—will minimise the possibility of the unequal burden of rates in these areas. However, what has not got through, because no one is telling the electors in these peripheral areas, is that 75 per cent. of the rate burden will be levied on them by the regional authority in any case, so they have no reason to fear Glasgow or the problems that they think Glasgow has. They have no reason to fear that on account of any increased rates; they will get them under the inflationary policies of the present Government whether they like it or not wherever they are. That is what is worrying.
The last argument to me is the one that I have always felt was right. There is something to be said for the town and country argument. I may be rather idealistic, perhaps naive—again it is a difficult matter to get across—but I think that many people enjoy living in these peripheral authorities. These authorities have many attractions and many more amenities than we enjoy in some areas inside Glasgow. One of the reasons why people go to these areas is to enjoy them. However, as I said earlier, one cannot escape from the social problems within the city by merely hopping over the boundary. Some people

think they can do that, but the experience in American cities shows that they will have to go further and further away from what they regard as a problem, whether it is vandalism, delinquency, mugging or whatever.
I should like to think that we as Socialists—I appeal to my hon. Friends, because they know that this is one of the strong arguments that has been put to them in some of these peripheral authorities—can face up to the problems about which we are all concerned.

Mr. Galbraith: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how the size of Glasgow will solve these social problems? They are there in his own constituency in Easterhouse, in spite of Glasgow.

Mr. Brown: Perhaps I am not making myself clear, or the hon. Member is dense. I am prepared to think that it is the latter. I am trying to suggest that there is an element of people of responsibility who are getting out of the city and therefore, not able to use their talents and abilities in assisting us to solve some of the problems within the city. Equally, I am saying—at least, I thought I was saying this until the hon. Gentleman interrupted me—that the citizens within the present city boundaries have a right to have a say. I am not talking about housing land; I am talking about amenity land, open spaces outside the city which can be shared by them and by those who enjoy them at the moment.

Mr. Galbraith: It is a regional problem.

Mr. Brown: It is not. The hon. Member should pay more attention. He is so totally out of touch even with what people think in Glasgow that it is unbelievable.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. McCartney: I totally agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) that the situation in America is that people try to escape from what is happening by going further and further out. Does he agree with me that what he is arguing for—these great Strathclyde and Strathkelvin areas in the Glasgow district—is the concept of that which in practical term is ineffective in the American situation?

Mr. Brown: I think I should leave my hon. Friend to make his own speech.

Mr. McCartney: I asked my hon. Friend a question. He should answer it.

Mr. Brown: No, I shall not answer it because I am not sure that I properly understood the question. That is one good reason for not answering it. I would have thought that there is general recognition, a common interest, in what I would describe as the Greater Glasgow district as it was presented to us the first time. No one can deny that.
I have studied some of the powerful arguments and understand why people felt strongly against coming in with Glasgow. But we have to break down some of these official barriers with regard to boundaries, and social, cultural and political barriers that have been built up, brought about by the stratifying or separating into distinct communities. In a positive sense we have much to give each other—that is Glasgow, and the authorities round about. I do not speak in this spirit from any desire to dominate any area, which is not in my nature and certainly is not behind Glasgow's belated campaign. It should be borne in mind that when one has four years to prepare a campaign it can be presented in the smoothest and best way. If Glasgow has made any mistakes it is because there has been too little time to do justice to what is a good case. I am sorry that many Government supporters are not even listening to the debate, because I had hoped that even at this late stage the Opposition might have been able to influence them to do what I genuinely believe the Government thought to be right in the first place and which, in their hearts, I believe they think is right.

Mr. Millan: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown). First, however, I want to complain about the way in which this whole issue has been handled by the Government. Quite apart from the ineptitude of the general handling of the Bill, both in the other place and in this House, these changes, which have been most unconvincingly presented to us by the Under-Secretary, have been decided upon by the Government at the very last stage of the Bill, without any kind of notice or discussion with Glasgow Corporation.
To compound this error, the Government have steadfastly refused even to discuss this matter with representatives of the Glasgow Corporation, not only from the ruling Labour majority group but from the Conservative side as well. In my experience it is absolutely unprecedented for any Secretary of State for Scotland of any party to refuse to meet the largest local authority in Scotland—indeed, any local authority in Scotland—on a matter of absolutely major intrinsic importance to that authority.
Quite apart from the merits or demerits of the question of the boundaries of Glasgow, it is utterly scandalous that the Secretary of State has refused to meet Glasgow Corporation on this matter. I do not think that this has ever happened previously. I know that it is not a particular discourtesy directed towards Glasgow because we have had similar discourtesies directed towards the Provost of Rutherglen and other people. But when the Government make this kind of change at the very last stage of the Bill there is an added obligation on them to discuss it with the local authority most concerned, particularly when, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, that authority has supported the Government all the way through—in the Strathclyde Region as well as in the district—and believed right up to the last minute that the Government would stick to the boundaries originally defined by them and debated and confirmed by this House before the Bill went to the other place.
We heard from the Under-Secretary a completely unconvincing case. He does not believe the arguments that he produced this evening for the changes. At the end of his speech, I thought he would probably finish by voting in both Lobbies simultaneously, because he gave as many convincing arguments for the boundaries which were in the Bill before it went to the other place as he did for the changes he is now asking the House to make.
It is true that some of the communities with which we are dealing are separate, identifiable and lively, with a strong sense of community. I do not deny that. But one has only to look at the make-up of other districts both in the Strathclyde Region and elsewhere to see that that is true of many other districts. Small and large burghs have been merged in the interests of local government reform and


of a more sensible and effective structure of local government. Such districts exist all over the Strathclyde Region. There is the Kyle and Carrick district, the burghs of Ayr, Girvan, Maybole, Prestwick and Troon, all having their own identities and a strong sense of community, but in the interests of efficient local government they are being brought together.
I want to give similar examples—from Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire and other regions of Scotland—to demonstrate to the House that to say that because people living in Bishopbriggs have a close identity with the burgh of Bishopbriggs, or people living in Bearsden and Milngavie feel an identity with Bearsden and Milngavie, that somehow settles the argument is completely to misrepresent not only the general arguments of the Wheatley Report but also what the Government are doing in the rest of Scotland.
A feeling of community is not by itself an argument for separate district status. It has not applied anywhere else in Scotland, and there is no reason why it should apply in Glasgow.
In the broadest economic terms—in terms of transport, wide community interests, leisure pursuits, social mix and so on—the overwhelming argument is for a Greater Glasgow district well beyond the boundary of the present city of Glasgow. This was exhaustively dealt with in the Wheatley Report, and I shall not repeat the arguments outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Provan.
If one wanted to depart from Wheatley and take a particular area out of the greater Glasgow district, by far the strongest case would be for Clydebank. I have always felt that Clydebank not only had a history as a separate community but had a greater sense of separateness and a stronger case for staying out of Glasgow than any of the other areas around Glasgow. But to argue that Eastwood, Bearsden, Milngavie and Bishopbriggs should not be brought into Glasgow simply because they have developed this independent entity, when one knows that they are overwhelmingly linked to Glasgow in every possible way, is to set aside the whole of the Wheatley philosophy and the whole of the philosophy and moving spirit within so much of the rest of the Bill.
I have a great deal of sympathy for my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie), and I take his point that, if these other areas are to be left out of Glasgow, there is an equally good case for leaving out Rutherglen and Cambuslang. Rutherglen and Cambuslang have more industry indigenous to their own area than Bearsden, Milngavie and Eastwood, which have no industry at all.
I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend, but, despite that, I shall vote for Rutherglen to be incorporated within the city of Glasgow because I believe that the economic and social arguments mean that Rutherglen and Cambuslang as well as these other areas should come within Glasgow.
We have had no explanation from the Government tonight about why these changes are being made. The people in the area concerned have been treated with tremendous disrespect and discourtesy by the Secretary of State. The Government should be ashamed of themselves for the squalid and shabby way in which they have changed their minds on this important issue.

Mr. Edward Taylor: I am sure that many of us who are fair about these matters, as I know the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) usually is, must feel sorry for the Minister. For the past two or three months he has been attacked on all sides by people agitating, on behalf of the burghs, to get out of the Greater Glasgow district. But tonight, having made this great concession, he finds himself with not a friend in sight and everyone attacking him wholesale. I hope he will not take my remarks unkindly because, though I shall not be supporting the point he made, I am sure that many people inside and outside the House, who will not be saying anything, are glad that this ridiculous action has been taken.
It is unfortunate that the discussions on the Greater Glasgow area are doing no good to Glasgow. Many of us regard this as unsavoury. It has, in the context of the Strathclyde Region, produced some rather ignorant and foolish remarks such as those we have heard from the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) about Glasgow. Even in


discussion of these amendments grave damage has been done to the general image of Glasgow in this squalid scramble by a group of burghs round Glasgow to get out of it. In these circumstances, the whole episode has not done Glasgow any good.
The basic argument which my hon. Friend put forward has been advanced by the peripheral burghs. It was interesting that while there was a case put by him about the identity of interest within each burgh—my hon. Friend, in his usual splendid way, went through all the burghs saying how Bishopbriggs had something, Milngavie had something and Eastwood had something—the one area which he did not mention was the city of Glasgow within its existing boundary.
If my hon. Friend were to look at Bearsden and Milnuavie and then at Glasgow itself, he would say that here we have a community which has one identifiable community interest. Can we honestly say that Craigton and Provan have more in common with each other than Cathcart and Eastwood? Clearly that is not so. If we were to move away from the Greater Glasgow district, which I support, if there were a case for moving at all, we should not have any change, leaving Glasgow with its existing boundaries.
There surely was a case for saying that we should split Glasgow into four and take a bit of the periphery from each area. One could take the south side of Glasgow and tack on Eastwood. Let us take the constituency of the hon. Member for Craigton and stick on a bit of Bearsden and Milngavie. Let us take the constituency of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) and stick on sonic of the periphery there. This surely is the sensible way to do it to try to achieve a community of interest.
I am aware of the local pressures which are exerted and of the reason for the amendment. It is not because the Government want it. It is probably for reasons which are nothing to do with the Conservative Party but which concern the prospect of the Bill being wrecked by the House of Lords in the next four days if we do not do something to please their Lordships on their amendments. I feel that if a change is to be made in the

proposed Greater Glasgow district, it should be done by splitting Glasgow and forming better communities of interest. The Glasgow that was made many years ago is not the Glasgow as a community which we should have now.
All the normal arguments have been advanced and put very ably by the two previous speakers. My hon. Friend must give some indication to the people in these glorious new independent burghs or districts of their financial prospects. We know that for the best reasons, because they were organising campaigns, as the hon. Member for Provan has rightly said, many people in the peripheral areas have been conned by some silly propaganda. Those I speak to are not concerned about the rights they have to run their own cleansing services in Bishopbriggs or Bearsden. They are concerned about cash. They are terrified that, by joining with Glasgow, they will suddenly find a massive increase in their rating values. It appears that way to people who are not fully aware of what is going on in the Bill. They see the situation in Glasgow, where we have very high rates.
9.30 p.m.
More importantly, they see the trend in the south side of Glasgow where the assessments are considerably higher for comparable properties than they are in the eastward part of Renfrewshire. Therefore they are scared, and at this stage of the Bill, when we are just about folding it up, we have to make clear precisely what is the percentage of revenue of the new authorities which will be carried by the region and what will be the scope which individual districts have to make an adjustment in their rates.
I fear that many of the people who have supported the campaigns for independence for peripheral burghs will get a nasty shock, first, when they get the regional rate, and secondly, when they discover that the district rate is only a small variation from that for Glasgow, or anywhere else. Then, in two or three years, there will be a greater shock when they get their new rateable assessments and find that there are common assessments throughout the Strathclyde Region, and we do not have the situation as we shall have over the next two years when they will be working to bring Renfrewshire or Dunbartonshire assessments to a


common regional rate. At this stage, we should give them warning of what is to happen.
The arguments have been gone over in considerable detail. My hon. Friend must be aware that, although we appreciate the considerable pressures he has been under, if Lord Wheatley were to look at the proposed districts we are setting up of Glasgow plus Rutherglen and at the other areas, in the event of his untimely and unhoped for decease he would turn in his grave. Like anyone else looking at local government in the future as something sensible and helpful, he would be very upset.
The argument which impressed me, put forward by Labour councillors of the Corporation of Glasgow at the meeting we had the other day, is that it would not be in the interests of good government for Glasgow if one were to have a city with a perpetual Labour majority. I say this in fairness, albeit that Glasgow has not helped to overcome the fears of the peripheral burghs with recent actions, defying the Government over the Housing Finance Act and other activities. I am one of the Tories who do not feel that any city in any circumstances needs to have a perpetual Labour majority. But in Glasgow we have the ridiculous situation of an overwhelming Labour majority whose members know that they are having to provide their own opposition from the splendid efforts of a small group of Conservatives and Progressives in the city. It is not healthy for any district, region or government to have superiority in vast numbers over a long period of time.

Mr. John Smith: The hon. Gentleman should have voted for Strathclyde.

Mr. Taylor: Yes, this is one reason why I voted for Strathclyde, because there we have a real community of economic interests, good social links, and on balance the elections for the Strathclyde Region will not give overwhelming advantage to any party.
There is provision in Clauses 13 and 14 for a review of boundaries which can be made marginally at any time, or a full review in five or 10 years. My hon. Friend must be aware that what we are doing may please some people, but it is not good

for local government in the Glasgow area or Glasgow district and I do not believe that any good can come from it.

Mr. William Small: I support my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) and Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) in the case they have put forward. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) reminded me of a man who is always selling things. In these days of tight money if he were selling silk stockings the purchaser would be guaranteed a run for his money.
The Under-Secretary should now be regarded as the Government gourmet. He originally had the recipe for a new form of local government but since then he seems to nave changed his mind. He was convinced that politically, morally and intellectually he began with a good case but he has been diverted by outside pressure to adopt the course he follows tonight. That is no good.
In view of Britain's population problems new towns were needed. It was necessary to build East Kilbride and Cumbernauld to assist Glasgow. How many hon. Members would want to live in a 34-storey block of flats in Glasgow with the sort of amenities that would bring? The nature of the argument and the personality of the city has changed. The majority of people now prefer a wider horizon and green belt around them. For that reason Glasgow needs to expand and a wider area is justified. I support the concept of a wider Glasgow.

Mr. Galbraith: I gave my views in support of Glasgow when we were discussing Strathclyde but perhaps I should give my support once more to the Government because here they are doing the right thing. From what I have heard so far—and I apologise that I was not present at the beginning of the debate—it seems that most people who have spoken have been hostile to the idea of a smaller rather than a greater Glasgow. With respect to those hon. Members, they are old fashioned and they have not realised that the whole conception of local government is changing.
If Glasgow were to continue to be an all-purpose authority I could see a good deal of sense in what they say about having urban areas around the city contained within a greater Glasgow area.


But that is not what will happen. Glasgow will cease to exist as it is and will completely change. All the important functions will be taken away.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) said that people should wake up and understand what is happening. It is not only the people outside Glasgow who should wake up and realise what is happening to their rates. The people inside Glasgow should wake up too and realise what is happening about their rates. They should get rid of their envy for outsiders. The true reason for this antagonism in Glasgow is that the people in the city believe that those outside are getting away with lower rates, which is absolute bunkum.

Mr. Edward Taylor: I did not say that.

Mr. Galbraith: No, but my hon. Friend should have said it. He gave the first part of the argument. He said that people outside Glasgow were afraid to come into the city for fear of having to pay more rates. He should have propounded the other leg of the argument, which is that the people inside Glasgow have no reason to envy those outside for paying lower rates. Ultimately they will be paying the same, if not higher rates. People inside Glasgow have to realise that Glasgow is ceasing to exist. Planning is being taken away along with education and social services. Yet practically every Opposition speech has stressed this business of social services, social equality, and social link between one class and another, one area and another.
Her Majesty's Opposition do not seem to realise that these services, which create one community, are to be carried out not on a Glasgow district basis but on a regional basis. They do not seem to have awakened to the fact that a revolution is taking place in local government. And because a revolution is taking place it is legitimate to restrict the size of Glasgow and to have on the periphery areas where perhaps some of the people do earn their living in Glasgow. But if we include areas such as Bearsden, why not go across the hills and include places such as Killearn and the rest? The situation is rather ridiculous. Why should one be seeking to make Glasgow bigger at the

very moment when the functions of the district—no longer the city of Glasgow—are becoming less?
My hon. Friend for Glasgow, Cathcart made a good suggestion with which I am most sympathetic—that the right thing to do is not to make Glasgow bigger but to cut it up into its constituent areas. I am certain that if that had been done we would not have the difficulties that we have today in Easterhouse. These difficulties exist purely because these areas have been part of a large city where the local views counted for very little.
Ideally the city should be split up in the way that London has been. We have Westminster—a city of only 250,000; Kensington and Chelsea have a little less. I tell colleagues who represent Glasgow—I am unfortunately in a minority of one—that what I am saying is no disloyalty to the city of Glasgow, where I and my family have lived and had interests for generations. I regard it as something more important than old-fashioned, misplaced loyalty to Glasgow. It is loyalty to Scotland and to the best form of local government one can get there. That is why I support the Government.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: I am the first non-Glasgow speaker in the debate. We in Rutherglen and Cambuslang, supporting this amendment, do not do so in a spirit of ill will to the city of Glasgow. We have no quarrel with that city, and I hope my hon. Friends will remember that our complaint is against one man only, the Secretary of State, for having made such a shambles of the Bill and having put the people of Rutherglen and Cambuslang in such a different position from everybody else.
I listened with great care to the laboured speech of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland trying to draw a distinction between the community of interests which we find at Eastwood and the community of interests we find at Rutherglen and Cambuslang. It was the most unconvincing argument I have heard evinced from that box for a long time. It is frustrating to be making speeches here. He and I know that there is one reason why we are being treated differently from any other burgh on the periphery of Glasgow. It is simply that he prejudged the issue before our case had been put by


his noble Friend Lord Selkirk in the House of Lords. Indeed, he has heard no one on it. I have been put in a difficult position. I was not on the Standing Committee and on Report Mr. Speaker decided not to call the amendment which stood in my name. This is the first opportunity I have had to put any of the points about which I and others are concerned.
9.45 p.m.
I should first like to say to my Glasgow colleagues that, while we do not bear them any ill will and have no quarrel with them, we are genuinely concerned that if we go into the city of Glasgow our problems, big as they are to us, may be very small to the city of Glasgow and there is a very genuine fear that they will be ignored. We want to co-operate with them in every possible way, and all we are asking now is that we should get precisely the same treatment as every other burgh.
I had hoped that the Secretary of State who has taken these decisions would be here to listen to at least part of this debate, and I am very sorry that he is not here. I do not blame anyone else. I do not blame Glasgow Corporation or the Scottish Office.
This is a personal decision taken by the Secretary of State, but even the Under-Secretary—one of his best friends—would have to admit that the Secretary of State does not know a great deal about West Lanarkshire. During the time that I have been a Member of Parliament for this part of the country he has never put his foot into the constituency, apart from a very brief private engagement when he did not bother to discuss the matter with anyone at all. We have tried desperately hard to talk to him about these matters but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) pointed out, all one gets when one writes and asks—as my provost and as the members of the Glasgow Corporation did—is a very brusque rebuttal, much less courteous than one would expect from a Secretary of State for Scotland.
I used to think that this Secretary of State believed in creating more districts. Indeed, when we first discussed this

matter in the Scottish Grand Committee in 1970, he opened the debate from the Opposition benches by saying that if he had a criticism of Wheatley it was that there should be more districts in Scotland. I remember that particularly well, because I followed him in that debate and I said how right he was. I was happy, too, that the Under-Secretary followed me a little later and seemed to be saying the same, and that at the end of the debate the hon. Gentleman who now looks after Home Affairs and Agriculture in Scotland wound up for the Opposition and paid compliments both to the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) and myself, because of the attitude we had taken. So one was encouraged to believe that there was a genuine desire to create more districts around this area than the Secretary of State now sees fit to do. We just do not understand what has happened, and can only suppose that there is a political bias operating against the people who live in my constituency.
I listened with care to the arguments of the Under-Secretary and tried to compare them with what he said about the other places. As I understand his case he is not interested in the amount of industry in Rutherglen, or in the size or community spirit of Rutherglen. He is concerned only with the distance from the centre of Glasgow, and the fact that is bounded on any number of sides by the City of Glasgow. He came to the box tonight and said that Rutherglen is 2½ miles from the City of Glasgow. He said that that is the distance from George Square to the city boundary.

Mr. Carmichael: He said from the city chambers.

Mr. Mackenzie: From the city chambers to the city boundary.

Mr. Younger: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to know that I said it was from the city chambers in Glasgow to the burgh chambers in Rutherglen.

Mr. Mackenzie: A few days ago, I measured in a motorcar the distance from the city chambers in Glasgow to the centre of the area covered by this amendment, and the distance is 5½ miles. But


I do not think that this distance argument is very important. If the Under-Secretary of State makes comments about the distance from Rutherglen to Glasgow, I ask him to bear in mind that what we are talking about is not merely Rutherglen burgh, but Rutherglen and Cambuslang which is a very much bigger area.
He then said that we are bounded on three sides by Glasgow. If he examines a map he will find that this again is quite untrue. We are bounded by Glasgow on only one and a half sides of the district which I am proposing, and most of the one and a half sides to which he is referring consists of the River Clyde where we have only two bridges, and the means of communication between one side and the other is important.
This is the whole extent of the Under-Secretary's case—distance, the number of sides and the number of buses running through my constituency to the city of Glasgow. He says that they run through Rutherglen and that therefore Rutherglen must be in the Glasgow district. How many buses go through Bishopbriggs or Eastwood or Bearsden? There may well be 300 buses going through those places as well as the burgh of Rutherglen.
We believe that we can stand on our own. As I have said before, it should be a question of either all in or all out. We may not like being all in, but at least there would be a certain logic about that. But there is no logic in the situation described by the Under-Secretary.
In stating my case for a separate Rutherglen I do not want to detract from the case of Bearsden, Bishopbriggs and the others. They must put their own case in their own way. But when the Under-Secretary talks about the community of interest in Eastwood as being one reason for giving that community separate status, may I remind him that, if we are talking about community of interest, Rutherglen is very much older than any of the areas which he has mentioned. We have a charter dating back from the days of King David in the 12th century, so there has been a community of interest in Rutherglen for a very long time.
The Under-Secretary has quoted my noble Friend Lord Shinwell who said that Rutherglen used to be part of Glasgow. In all charity to my noble Friend, all I can say is that perhaps the years have

rather faded his memory of the situation. Rutherglen has never at any time been a part of the city of Glasgow.
We have our own established community. We have our own institutions and we have had those institutions for longer than the institutions in any of those in places mentioned tonight by the Under-Secretary. If he wants to make size the criterion, I suggest that he looks at the Bishopbriggs—Kirkintilloch area with a population of 51,000, at Clydebank with a population of 40,754, at Bearsden and Milngavie with a population of 25,800. Eastwood with a population of 37,547 and Cumbernauld and Kilsyth with a population of 31,347. The Under-Secretary knows that with a population of some 60,000 we are the biggest of the lot.
The hon. Gentleman made some play with the job situation in Rutherglen. We have more industry in Rutherglen than Bearsden and Milngavie and Eastwood and all these other places, with the possible exception of Clydebank, put together. We have a thriving industrial community in Rutherglen with industrial estates employing 15,000 people. In Cambuslang we have one of the oldest established steelworks in Scotland, and long may it remain there. The longer the present Secretary of State holds his job, the less chance shall we have of keeping it there. As to the newer industries, we have Hoover employing 4,000 people with a possible expansion of 3,000 in the next two or three years. In getting those 3,000 there will be very little thanks due to the Secretary of State.
I think I have proved that we have 30,000 jobs in Rutherglen and Cambuslang, that people move between these two communities to find work. I agree that people move out to find work but there are very few industrial workers within this community who travel to Glasgow for work. The majority either work in Rutherglen or Cambuslang or travel to East Kilbride. These are the figures worked out by our local authorities. There is more industry in one factory in Rutherglen than in all the other burghs and communities put together, with the exception of Clydebank.
The Minister is prepared to disregard the age of this burgh, the size of the community—because of the distance and the buses.


We are not prepared to accept this. We believe we are being shabbily treated. I say to the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur), whom I see in his place, that I wish the chairman of the Unionist Party in Rutherglen had been as pally with him as some of the folks from Bishopbriggs and Bearsden and elsewhere. It looks now as though that is the only way one has a chance of success.
We have an excellent case for standing on our own. We are one of the oldest burghs in the country. We want friendly, neighbourhood relations with Glasgow and we believe that we can have them much more effectively than any of the other areas mentioned. If the Minister wants to bulldoze the people of Rutherglen and Cambuslang into Glasgow, then let him do it. Let it be his job and not ours. I believe that we should either be all in or all out. We have been very unfairly treated by the Government. I ask the House to accept my amendments.

Mr. John Robertson: I think it was Jimmy Maxwell who is reported as having said, "If you cannot ride two horses at one time what the hell are you doing in the circus?" The Under-Secretary gave a startling performance at the beginning of the debate. He argued all sides against the middle and I believe that he has convinced himself to abstain. If he had known the geography of the places he was talking about I am sure he would not have talked so much nonsense.
What my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie) has said about the number of trade journeys from Rutherglen is true. People probably come from Motherwell, so the argument is that the Secretary of State should take the folk from Motherwell and Hamilton and put them into Glasgow, keeping the folk from Rutherglen where they are because they probably work in East Kilbride. How much nonsense can there be?
There was talk of the community of interest at Eastwood. Does anyone know the community of Eastwood? I know Busby, old Newton Mearns, William-wood, Rouken Glen, but I know no place called Eastwood. I do not know many

people who live there. They are all behind big walls in swanky houses. I am told on good authority from people who know the area well that a person who lives in Newtown Mearns does not admit to knowing anyone from Eastwood because he gets a bad name.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) lives in the place. He knows it better than anybody else. There is plenty of wealth in Eastwood but there is certainly no community. That is my quarrel with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown), because community is important. All the history of Glasgow has been the destruction of local communities.
I accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) that the better solution would have been to break up Glasgow.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Local Government (Scotland) Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Fortescue.]

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL

Question again proposed, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Robertson: We could perhaps have re-created some of the burghs that constituted Glasgow and built up the sense of community within the larger unit because the city of Glasgow disappeared.
Whether the new second-tier district authority, an authority with limited powers, will do anything useful, I do not know. The important authority will be the regional authority. Once again, we may well suffer from the lack of identity, the lack of community. My hon. Friend the Member for Provan well knows that one of the greatest evils in his constituency is the lack of any nucleus, and heart any sense of community or identity. To say that if one lives in Easterhouse one


belongs to Glasgow does not have much meaning.
Consequently, it is important that the district authority should be seen as a means of creating communities. Where there is a community in existence, such as Clydebank or Rutherglen, we should go out of our way to ensure that it continues. If we argue that communities should be out, they should all be out. If we say that there should be a Greater Glasgow including everyone, we cannot make fish of one and flesh of another. To suggest that Eastwood has a community, and Rutherglen has not, is so ridiculous as not to bear consideration.
I shall not comment on Clydebank or Milngavie. The distance between the boundary of Glasgow and Paisley is about three-quarters of a mile at its shortest. On the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Provan he must take Renfrew, Paisley and Barrhead into the Greater Glasgow area. Only a quarter of a mile away from Glasgow is Barrhead—it is no use swallowing the elephant and straining at a gnat—and there is East Kilbride. Why not take in Coatbridge and Airdrie and Hamilton? The distance between the boundaries of Glasgow and Coatbridge is very short.
Glasgow has one problem before it. Whatever its shape or size, it must try to recapture the sense of community that it has lost over the years. I do not blame

the people of Glasgow, but I wish that within the Bill we could have the kind of solution that London has found. Whatever the faults in the relationship between the Greater London Council and the London boroughs, at least in the London boroughs there has been recreated a sense of community. That is the opportunity we have missed in the Bill.
The Under-Secretary should carefully consider my suggestion. All his rebels have gone. None of the Tory Members who were against the Government in Committee and started spoiling the Bill from the Government's point of view is here. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman sent them away on holiday so that they would not vote against the Government. Perhaps they are in Turkey or Strasbourg.
Whatever the Under-Secretary does, let him be consistent. I hope that he will not deal with one burgh in one way and another in a different way. His amendments make nonsense of the Bill. I recommend to the hon. Gentleman that he take in the Lords division of the second-tier authorities. We must have a mixture of both. Let us have a wee bit of consistency just for once, then we might be able to know what we are voting for and what we are voting against.

Mr. John Smith: I shall be brief, as I know that some of my hon. Friends are still trying to speak. I disagree with some of my hon. Friends, and I disagreed with them in Committee, about the Glasgow district. I have always failed to understand the argument which many Glasgow hon. Members have put forward, and which the city of Glasgow has been putting forward to hon. Members in correspondence, for a greater Glasgow district. The argument of town and country is essentially a regional argument. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) has believed sincerely and argued consistently in support of this proposition. I think that he is wrong.
The main function of local government will be carried out by regional authorities—namely education, social work and strategic planning, which will involve the disposition of housing. Those are important "gut" matters of local government. The districts will be very much a secondary affair. The only substantial power that the districts will have is that of housing. The more I think about it the more I wonder whether it is right that housing should go to the districts. However, it has been put there. Perhaps that was done to give the districts something to do. Perhaps when the Government considered what the districts had to do they realised that they had so little to do that they would get very few people interested in local government if they did not give them something like housing to do.
I am puzzled to know why, when we are reducing the powers given to districts, we should expand the boundaries of Glasgow. It has been said that the city of Glasgow has ceased to exist. I think that that is true. It is not appreciated but we have abolished cities and all-purpose authorites. We now have regions. There is one vast region for the West of Scotland. I do not agree with the concept of vast regions but we shall try to make the Strathclyde region work effectively. I am sure that everyone who has warred against it until now will stop doing so and will co-operate. We shall try to make the West of Scotland as good a place as we can. We must remember that the power will be in the Strathclyde

regional authority. The city of Glasgow, the county of Lanarkshire and everybody else had better remember that.
The power of the districts is a different matter. The districts will be dealing with matters that are closer to the people, such as community centres and local planning decisions. Individual planning applications do not have the highly charged political content which strategic planning might have. The districts will deal with matters which do not have much political content and which do not arouse much controversy.
I have always wondered why it was thought necessary to extend the boundaries around Glasgow for district purposes. If it were the greater Glasgow region I should follow the argument. I do not understand the force of the district argument. I am puzzled about the proposed boundaries. Why is it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. John Robertson) has asked, that some areas of Renfrewshire are included in the Glasgow district and others are not?
It has puzzled me that Glasgow did not ask that they be put in a greater Glasgow district. There are historical reasons for some of the boundaries to be so designated. One difference between the greater Glasgow district and other representative districts which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan missed when he was talking about community interest is the democratic representation involved. The burgh of Bishopbriggs in my constituency has a town council of 12 councillors. There would be only one district councillor representing that burgh in the Glasgow district council and two-thirds of a regional councillor. It is not clear what it will now get on a regional basis. The burgh would have a community of 22,000 people and only one district councillor.
That is a valid point which some of my colleagues in Glasgow have not taken into account. There may be good or bad reasons for people not wanting to be in the city of Glasgow, just as there may be good and bad reasons for other people to want them in. One of the reasons which has been expressed forcibly to me in my constituency is that people do not feel that they are getting a proper basis


of representation. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) realised that and said that he hoped that something could be done about it. The trouble is that nothing can be done about it if the district remains that size. There is a limit to the number of councillors one can have. They would have had 84 councillors under the old city of Glasgow and district arrangements, so there was a very difficult problem.
People who are used to having fairly local democracy feel perturbed about being thrown in to some huge area for purposes that do not demand a huge area. I do not see the purposes that require, at district level, the bringing in of all the peripheral areas.
I am not happy with what the Government propose, and I shall explain why. These are local matters which may not be of any great interest to people who are not connected with the area, but they are important. I have never understood why it was necessary to sub-divide the Strathkelvin region. I regret to say that my argument for it was soundly defeated in committee. The argument was that Bishopbriggs could be put into the Strathkelvin district and that the matter could be left there. I do not understand why the Government have chosen, after having executed that maneouvre, as it were, to sub-divide it further. There is no need. The Strathkelvin district would not be made too big by adding another 13,000 electors and a 22,000 population. It would be roughly on a par with other large districts in Lanarkshire.
Why it was necessary to sub-divide it I do not know. It has started off badly because two-thirds of the proposed Bishopbriggs Kirkintiloch district did not agree with its creation, namely the burgh of Kirkintilloch and the electoral divisions of Chryston and Stepps, which are part of my constituency. Both the councillors for the latter area have made it clear to me that they are vigorously opposed to it. It does not seem to make a good start to local government to start a new district of which two-thirds of the people do not want it. That is why I shall vote against that district when the House divides.
The way in which this was done was most unfortunate. None of the local authorities that have been juggled about knew what would happen to them. Glasgow had fair warning of the argument that some areas might come out. Glasgow probably thought that nothing would happen. Glasgow was entitled to think that, on the view that the Government took at the Report stage. There was then not the slightest chink in the armour. I was a disappointed man, from the point of view of the Government, at that stage concerning my area. Suddenly there was a volte face. I have checked with the local authorities. None of them heard anything about it. They received a communication from the Secretary of State saying that it had been done. They must be about the only newly created districts which have not had some consultation about the boundaries. This was done in such a rush that proper consideration was not given to the electoral boundaries. A covering letter from the Scottish Home Department was sent out later, which said that in view of the rush they would have to use existing boundaries.
There is something to be said for having a reasonably sized district. Strathkelvin made a lot of sense, and adding Bishopbriggs to it, while there was dispute about that, did not upset the apple cart too much. But having this other sub-division most certainly does upset the apple cart. The way in which this has come about is most unfortunate. The areas of Chryston and Stepps had no notice about this. It was never discussed, and they never considered their position in relation to it. Suddenly it landed in their laps.
I moved an alternative amendment in Committee but I did not include Chryston and Stepps. Indeed, I argued that there was a connection between them and Cumbernauld and other areas which form a corridor from the city of Glasgow.
I wish that the Government had stuck to the amendment that was carried in Committee in the other place, when Lord Hughes moved an amendment that Bishopbriggs should go into Strathkelvin. That is one of the amendments which was thrown out at an early stage.
I cannot support the Government in their sub-division. If I get the opportunity, I shall vote for an amendment


in my name to have the district of Bishopbriggs included in Strathkelvin.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. McCartney: I want first to make it very clear that I do not oppose my Glasgow colleagues in their desire to see Glasgow benefit from reorganisation of local government, but it is distressing to me to hear my colleagues and at least one Glasgow Member on the Government side expressing the view that we should continue to look upon Glasgow as the important factor in any unit created under reorganisation of local government. I expressed that opinion in Standing Committee and on Report.
We are talking about the functions of a district authority. We are not concerned now with what a regional authority's function is. Nor are we concerned with the concept of Glasgow Corporation or Dunbarton County Council or Lanarkshire County Council, or of any burgh authority which exists under the existing Local Government Acts. What we are talking about is the creation of district authorities under a proposed new Act of Parliament.
I find it very disturbing indeed that at this stage the Government should come along with proposals to divide an area which, in Standing Committee and on Report, I and my colleagues, here and in another place, proposed should be the Kilpatricks district. I am disturbed that the Government should divide it into two separate districts in spite of the fact that during the whole course of this argument here and in another place the Government said that the Kilpatricks district as proposed was too small to be viable.
In Standing Committee, on Report, and in another place the Government argued that because of the community of interest between that proposed Kilpatricks district and Glasgow it was right and logical that it should be part of the Glasgow district. They now suggest that, just because they were defeated in another place, the district which they said was not viable in population, size, transport arrangements, industry, or inter-relationships with the Glasgow community and other communities in the area, should now suddenly be split into two separate areas which will be viable.
It is quite coincidental that at the same time they are proposing that an area which my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. John Smith) represents should be detached from Glasgow. It is also coincidental that they are suggesting that Eastwood should become a district authority. This is perhaps because of the influence of the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) who holds a very high office as Vice-Chairman of the Conservative and Unionist Party in Scotland.
In Standing Committee, it may be recalled when we detached the Kilpatricks district from the Glasgow district because of manoeuvring on the Government side, that area was put into limbo. The Government said there could be alternative arrangements for the creation of a district or districts on the periphery of Glasgow. At that time I accused the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire of gerrymandering for party political interests. It is evident now that that is what has taken place.

Mr. MacArthur: Will the hon. Member allow me?

Mr. McCartney: Let me complete what I am going to say. I know what the hon. Member is going to say.
One thing I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) about is that the Government's volte-face has been determined by their party political interests in the areas of Eastwood, Bishopbriggs and Bearsden. There is no shadow of doubt about that. But it does not solve the problem for those in the areas that I represent who conscientiously and genuinely, across party boundaries, were seeking to create and devise a district authority which was viable in every sense of the remit to the Wheatley Commission.

Mr. MacArthur: Will the hon. Gentleman give way, as I suspect that he is referring to me? Perhaps I may correct the record which he has confused in his mind. As I recall, Eastwood was not put in limbo, as he said. I moved the amendment about Eastwood and lost it. Eastwood remained in the Glasgow district because my amendment was defeated.
On the general peripheral argument about which the hon. Gentleman launched wild accusations at me, I remind him


that I have been consistent throughout and I am very sorry that my consistency required me repeatedly to vote against my right hon. and hon. Friends in Committee. My argument has always been that I thought it right that the peripheral areas should be removed outside the Glasgow district. I voted consistently for that purpose and I am glad that latterly, and belatedly, the Government share that view. I welcome the grouping that the Government now propose.

Mr. McCartney: There is an old saying in the footwear trade that those who wear the shoes know where they pinch most. I take it that the hon. Member who has just spoken is the Vice-Chairman of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Association, otherwise he would not have commented as he did. Secondly, I did not say that Eastwood was placed in limbo; I said that the Kilpatricks district was placed in limbo because of what the hon. Member did in Standing Committee.

Mr. MacArthur: Mr. MacArthur indicated assent.

Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman is agreeing with me. There was no need for him to have risen.
What has been suggested to us now is dictated purely and simply by party-political needs in those three areas. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) shakes his head. The one point on which I agreed with the hon. Gentleman was when he said that his colleagues were thinking about only one side of the coin. In shaking his head he is trying to protect those colleagues.

Mr. Galbraith: I am not trying to protect my colleagues. I am merely trying to protect myself against the hon. Gentleman's misrepresentation. I believe that Glasgow is big enough at its present size, and that the peripheral areas would be better on their own. That has been my view consistently. It has nothing to do with political gerrymandering. That may be the way the hon. Gentleman's mind works, but it is not the way my mind works.

Mr. McCartney: I am pleased to hear the hon. Member declare himself in those terms. However, I do not believe that it is necessarily true that the peripheral areas should be left outside Glasgow. When I continue to argue

for the Kilpatricks district, I do so not because it is a peripheral area but because, in my opinion, it is an area that constitutes, in the terms of the Wheatley Report, a unit which could operate as a district authority. My argument has nothing to do with whether it is within the Glasgow boundary. Does the hon. Gentleman wish me to give way again?

Mr. Galbraith: Could it be that the hon. Gentleman has that view with respect to that particular peripheral area because, to a large extent, he is its representative in Parliament?

Mr. McCartney: I like to hope that that is true. I receive great support from the burgh of Bearsden. The hon. Gentleman astonished me with that assertion. We are considering what would be effective district authority units. I have always argued that the Kilpatricks district would be an effective authority in the terms of our debate on the matter. The Government panicked by leaking their intentions to the Glasgow Herald. The Undersecretary need not shake his head, because what the Government declared a few days later was exactly what the Glasgow Herald had reported. The hon. Gentleman should not shake his head, indicating it was not leaked. This happens with every Government.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: It should be clearly understood that the matter was not leaked. The Secretary of State wrote a letter to the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce dated 1st October and released it to the Press. That letter was a bombshell to everybody, including the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce.

Mr. McCartney: Be that as it may, the Glasgow Herald was quite correct in reporting what it believed were the Government's intentions. One may guess how the Glasgow Herald got hold of it. Having done that, they panicked the local authorities into thinking that if they did not accept what the Government proposed they would not get anything. So they decided that they should indicate that, as an alternative to the Kilpatricks district, they would accept the Government proposal because it was a proposal which had been made by the Convention of Royal Burghs at the earliest stage of the debate about the reorganisation of


local government and had been withdrawn because it was indicated to them that it was not on.
Substituted for that was a proposal which it was generally agreed would be acceptable and which the Government opposed right down the line until they were defeated in the other place. Having been defeated, they returned with a suggestion identical to that which at that time was not acceptable. I suggest to the Government that because of the real hash they have made of the Bill, not only in regard to district authorities but to every element of the Bill, the honourable thing they should do is to abandon it.
With our experience of the English Bill and what has happened to it since, and our experience in the processing of this one, the Government should get down to producing a Bill with real meaning to local government reorganisation in Scotland. What we are being forced into accepting tonight is a complete mash-up that has nothing to do with the Wheatley Commission. I support the principles that came out of the Wheatley Report. I suggest, at this late stage, that the honourable thing to do is to abandon the Bill and let us discuss again using the experience gained.
The Government are not happy; nor are the Opposition happy about what is now going to happen in regard to local government reorganisation in Scotland.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Sillars: I hesitate to come in on the debate but I must because Amendments (m) and (n) relate to parts of the constituency of South Ayrshire. I waited as near to the end of the debate as possible so that the House could concentrate its attention on the question of Glasgow. The Under-Secretary knows that Amendments (m) and (n) deal with parts of the Kyle and Carrick district and part of the Cumnock and Doon Valley district in the southern part of Ayrshire. They refer specifically to Dalrymple, Rankinston and Coylton.
In Committee we had some difficulty in defining the boundaries between the two districts. We moved from Committee to Report to Third Reading and then to the other place in agreement that Dalrymple, Coylton and Rankinston would be part of the Cumnock and Doon

Valley area. That was changed unexpectedly in the other place by the Government, although the Minister warned me a few days before that it was to happen. I have always admitted to the Government that the villages of Coylton and Dalrymple posed a problem in relation to exactly where they lay and where the main pull exists between the town of Ayr and the rest of the Cumnock and Doon Valley area. A close scrutiny of the facts would indicate that both Coylton and Dalrymple were well within the Cumnock and Doon Valley area. I admit there is a commuter traffic from them to Ayr but there are considerable family and economic ties which take them back into the Cumnock and Doon Valley area.
I vigorously protested about the change in the other place and the Under-Secretary knows that I wanted Coylton as well as Dalrymple to be transferred into the Cumnock and Doon Valley area. He knows from the local Press that at the 11th hour the controlling Labour group on the Ayr County Council could not support me in my contention about the three villages. However, I have consulted the Under-Secretary and we spoke to other people involved and Amendments (m) and (n) produced a compromise. I am reluctant to accept a compromise but I have no choice, in view of the tight finish of the Bill. On my reading of the amendments, and I seek the Under-Secretary's confirmation here, Dalrymple and Rankinston are to go into the Cumnock and Doon Valley district and the village of Coylton is to be the sole casualty of this argument between myself and the Government and it is to remain in the Kyle and Carrick district.
The Under-Secretary should know that the majority of the people in Coylton and the three local authorities which will ultimately make up the Cumnock and Doon Valley district are bitterly opposed to Coylton being allocated to Kyle and Carrick district. They are prepared to carry on the argument.
I should be grateful if the Under-Secretary will confirm for me what the Secretary of State said on Report that the Government will refer the matter of the boundaries between Kyle and Carrick and Cumnock and Doon Valley immediately to the Boundaries Commission. If he will confirm that I can tell the people


of Coylton to prepare their arguments and if there are objective members on the Commission they can be sure that Coylton will go back to the Cumnock and Doon Valley district.

Mr. Carmichael: We have been making unnaturally slow progress for Scottish business. The problem of dealing with the Under-Secretary and with the Government's amendments is that we are never quite sure which of the Under-Secretary's brilliant speeches in Committee we should quote from. Those speeches were at such variance with what he said tonight that it makes him appear ridiculous.
I shall try to be brief. He said that we must come off the fence. That is very funny coming from him considering the number of fences he has been climbing over and falling off in the last two or three weeks. He speaks about the distances involved in the Rutherglen argument. We know that distance is relevant and a clear part of the argument he was putting up. We know his argument was tied up with the peripheral areas around Glasgow and, indeed, around all the conurbations in Scotland.
The real criteria were where the people really belonged—where they found work, where they found leisure, where they shopped, where they got their medical treatment and so on. But we come now to what, in terms of the Bill, is an obscenity—of all places Eastwood is to be taken out of the greater Glasgow area. Yet by none of these criteria, which were spelt out so fully by the Under-Secretary of State in Committee—does Eastwood qualify. There is little work locally; most of the leisure traffic comes into Glasgow; there is only very local shopping; there is no major medical treatment locally.
Yet now we are told that Eastwood is to be a district while Rutherglen is being refused. I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) and have great sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie). If there is one area, apart from Clydebank—and I think I would even put Rutherglen ahead of Clydebank—that has a right to be a district, it is Rutherglen.
Rutherglen has ancient traditions. It was mentioned in Scottish history long before many of the larger burghs and cities. It is unique in Scottish history. To suggest that a place like that has less community spirit and less right to an individuality and a being of its own than a place like Eastwood is grotesque. The hon. Gentleman loses all credibility in putting forward such a case and I am deeply disappointed.
Some hon. Members queried the role of the city of Glasgow. As a Glasgow Member and as a Glaswegian, it has been pointed out to me that Glasgow was given three weeks as against something like four years for peripheral areas. Only three weeks ago did the bombshell fall on Glasgow. The concept of greater Glasgow was ably argued by Wheatley, Campbell and Younger plus all the might of St. Andrews House. Why should they decide to change a winning team? However, I have a sneaking suspicion that there may be a lot of changes on the Front Bench opposite when we return next Session.
The Government originally were doing what we all hoped would be done. Quite apart from what was said in Committee, the grapevine continually told us that the Government would continue greater Glasgow. On Report, the right hon. Gentleman said:
The Government have looked at the various possibilities with care and have again come to the conclusion that what was originally in the Bill was the best solution for this area. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th June 1973; Vol. 858, c. 263.]
If that was so as late as 18th June, after 43 sittings in Committee, after three days on Report, after endless discussions in the corridors, after all sorts of other examinations of the situation, why have the Government, out of the blue, changed their minds?
Despite the protestations of the Vice-Chairman of the Unionist Party in Scotland, knowing a little about politics I do not believe that there was not a nudge or a nod or a wink in the right direction, because it is a curious coincidence that the areas taken out are areas which favour the Unionist Party.

Mr. Galbraith: Clydebank?

Mr. Carmichael: One can only get away with so much in taking out the no-man's land of Eastwood. One has to


make some propitiation of the god reason.

Mr. Galbraith: rose—

Mr. Carmichael: No. We have gone on a long time tonight. We are also left with a complicated situation for our voting. The situation, Mr. Speaker is unique. I am sure some of my hon. Friends with special interests and who have made themselves clear and frank all through will want to support their own particular areas. But I do not think that any of my hon. Friends on this side, or many of the people of Scotland—and certainly of the West of Scotland—think that the Government's belated solution is in any way satisfactory, and I can see from the face of the Minister who is to reply in sweet words that he does not think that it is very satisfactory either. I shall vote very solidly for the Bill as it left the Commons, which was the correct solution, and when we have reached this appalling impasse and mess that is the correct constitutional procedure. I hope that as many of my hon. Friends as possible, if they are not able to get exactly what they want—

Mr. McCartney: In stressing those remarks, will my hon. Friend indicate quite clearly that he is not speaking for the Opposition but is speaking on his own behalf, even though he is the last person from these benches to speak from the Dispatch Box?

Mr. Carmichael: I thought I had said that. My hon. Friend has worked on the Bill and I thought he would have realised that there has been a fair amount of independence. But while I am speaking for myself, I also believe that there are very few people apart from those on the Government Front Bench who accept the solution put forward by the Government. I do not say no one; I just say very few.

Mr. Younger: By leave of the House, perhaps if I may reply very briefly to this debate. It is very sad to see that one gets no thanks whatever for listening to people's arguments and deciding to make changes as a result. There were fine words spoken at the beginning. During the second sitting of our Committee upstairs on 30th January, my right hon. Friend said in starting off his first reply at column 80:

Let me also say—and this is perhaps most important of all—that the Government do not have fixed positions on all the matters before us. We intend to deal flexibly with all proposals put here.
Then in the following column the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said
My enthusiasm for further sittings is not unconditional. It is no use sitting at all unless we have a certain measure of come and go and mutual persuasion in our discussions. If the Government are to be inflexible on major as well as minor matters it will be very difficult."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, First Scottish Standing Committee, 30th January 1973; c. 80–81.]
I rather liked that attitude on both Front Benches. I have always felt that if the Scottish Committee has a fault it is that, in Bill after Bill, successive Governments have pushed their will through. I welcomed the thought that on a very non-political issue we were going to have real discussion, to listen to the arguments and were prepared to be convinced. But here are all the thanks we get. We not only have hon. Gentlemen objecting strongly in reaction to the Government's making some changes to try to take account of views expressed; we have complete illogicality in what everybody does. One would think that everybody on the other side had supported the Government right through in their previous views, standing shoulder to shoulder with the Government. There are two hon. Gentlemen who can say that they did that. One of them is the hon. Member for Glasgow, Proven (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) who has never wavered in his consistency and is very much to be admired for that. If we take the issue of whether or not Bearsden or Milngavie should be out of Glasgow, whom do we find supporting the Government? The answer is two hon. Gentlemen—the hon. Member for Glasgow, Proven, and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Woodside (Mr. Carmichael).
10.45 p.m.
What about all the others? Were they supporting the Government? Not a bit of it. Nine hon. Members opposite had no intention of supporting the Government at that time; yet they come along today and they are quite happy to take the opposite view to that of the Government and yet say that they have been supporting the Government all the time.


Six hon. Members voted for Eastwood not to be part of Glasgow, and about 10 voted against the Government on Kilpatricks.
The House should bear in mind that the picture that somebody might get from reading the report of this debate, that the Opposition have all along been supporting the Government until this change, is plain and simple nonsense, and hon. Members opposite cannot get away from it.

Mr. McCartney: What the hon. Gentleman is suggesting is that every hon. Member who has opposed him tonight and during the various stages of the Bill has been doing so solely in order to oppose the Government. Is it not true to say that at various stages, including tonight, there have been hon. Members who have opposed each other as well as supporting each other? In Standing Committee there were hon. Members who supported the Government, those who abstained from voting and others who opposed the Government. Would not the hon. Gentleman agree?

Mr. Younger: Absolutely, but I think that what has been forgotten is that both sides of the House are very much divided on these issues. There is no unanimity about it. The Government have tried to respond to the strongly expressed views of many Members in this House and in another place. If this is all the thanks we get, it is rather a depressing thought that we cannot expect Government of either party to try this game again. In the future it will be a case of putting through what the Government of the day want, and sticking to it at all costs.
I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) for his support. He has been absolutely consistent. I was also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) who raised a number of very interesting issues. However, I suggest to him that it is a little early to look into the financial position of these new districts. All I can say on the point of finance is that in our opinion all of these new districts which we are proposing can certainly be financially viable, and this applies also to the previous districts which were discussed on other occasions; they too

were perfectly financially viable. I do not think that is in issue between us.
I was particularly interested to hear the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. John Smith). I appreciate that he is every bit as entitled as anyone else to have his views heard, not only as to whether or not his people should come out of Glasgow but also as to where they should go when they are out of it. He has a perfectly fair point of view. I accept his point of view about Stepps and Chryston. It is very marginal either way. But I must point out that his proposal for Stepps and Chryston would have made a very strangely shaped area about the area of Kirkintilloch, and I do not think it would be very satisfactory.
What has really been lacking in this debate is a real application to the two separate issues individually. The first issue is whether these areas, or each one of them, should or should not be part of Glasgow. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan was very clear about it. But I do not think enough attention was paid to these two different arguments.
It is not stretching the results of our debates too far to say that there is much more unanimity among Scottish Members about whether they should be part of Glasgow than about where they should go thereafter. A considerable number would agree, although I am not altogether happy with it, that these areas should probably not be part of Glasgow.
When we come to where they are to go thereafter and what the districts are to be, there is much less unanimity. It is necessary to see the issue in those two parts.

Mr. William Hannan: If that is so, and the Government were convinced of that when they restored these peripheral areas on Report, what are the reasons for their change of mind since, and their using an unrepresentative, undemocratic body to strike at the roots of Scottish local government democracy?

Mr. Younger: It is a matter of judgment. In putting through a controversial Bill like this, which is not party political, one must listen to what people are saying all the time. I accept that the hon. Gentleman has strong views on the matter, but we were defeated in Committee, the original provision was


restored on Report, but we were then defeated again in another place. If one is to pay attention to what is said in Parliament, there must come a point when the weight of evidence begins to turn one the other way. Not everyone will agree where it comes, but one must use one's judgment.
I am entitled to ask the House to take what we have done as a genuine attempt by the Government to take account of Parliament's views. If there is a fault that I could respectfully put to my Scottish colleagues, it is that some of them have perhaps been voting against such matters as these areas being in Glasgow without fully realising where that could lead. The Government must take account of those votes and other pressures.

Mr. Millan: This is all very impressive, but why did not the Government talk to Glasgow Corporation? Why did they refuse to meet it?

Mr. Younger: I have not come to that. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means by "very impressive". Either the House wants the Government to pay attention to what it has said or it does not. We tried, and we have received scant thanks.
It has never been my case that the viability of the Kilpatrick district was in question. It could have been viable, and it could be viable. My complaint about it was that it perhaps did not have internal community of interest. One can argue either way, and the evidence is all on the record. My contention was and is that there is no natural community of interest between Milngavie and Clydebank. Other people may have different opinions, but that is our opinion, and we are as entitled to it as anyone else is to his.
On the Strathkelvin district there is an issue which the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North mentioned, but which has not been touched on enough. Once it is accepted that the burgh of Bishopbriggs should be out of the greater Glasgow district, is the Strathkelvin district as proposed a good district? Does it have community of interest? I would not suggest that it would be unviable. I am suggesting that three different centres, each with its own strong life and

traditions, each reasonably large in size, are not likely to make for a district with a proper and easily identifiable centre which has a real community of interest.
I said in Committee that I was not at all convinced that there is large community of interest between Bishopbriggs, at one end, and Cumbernauld, at the other end. Again, that is a matter of opinion. It is the Government's opinion that there is not such a satisfactory community of interest between the two ends of the Strathkelvin district that we should recommend it as likely to be satisfactory. That is why we decided that it would make two more satisfactory districts with a community of interest within themselves if we put Bishopbriggs and Kirkintilloch into one and Cumbernauld and Kilsyth into the other. This again is a matter of opinion. But the Government are entitled to their view, and that is what I recommend the House to accept.
No one can fail to have great sympathy with the case put by the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie). Through no fault of his he was not a member of the Committee. Perhaps he would have wished to be a member, because he could have raised the matter then. I accept straight away that it is very upsetting for those who live in the burgh of Rutherglen to find that apparently, among the peripheral burghs, they are not to get the same treatment. I cannot say anything which will be very cheerful or satisfactory news to those people except that I appreciate how they feel. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is not a satisfactory thing to say to them. But much as I might have sympathy in that way, I have to look as reasonably and as objectively as I can at the question whether Rutherglen is genuinely part of what we ought to have in the community of Glasgow. There may be misunderstanding between the hon. Member for Rutherglen and I about travel to work. I was not sure that I understood him correctly. For the record, the figures which I have quoted from the 1966 census, the latest that we have, are that from Rutherglen 45 per cent. of the employed population travel to work in Glasgow and 32 per cent. of the workforce in Rutherglen travel from Glasgow to work there. Those are the two figures which I gave.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would also like to tell us about the travel to work position vis-à-vis Eastwood, Bearsden and Milngavie. If the hon. Gentleman has been as sympathetic as he says, why is it that when I and my provost and council have approached the Secretary of State we have received the most discourteous brush off that I can remember from any Minister?

Mr. Younger: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would be as sorry as I was to hear that there was any discourtesy either to the hon. Member or to his constituents. My right hon. Friend had to decide long ago that it was not physically possible for him to meet every local authority personally to hear what it had to say.

Mr. Mackenzie: This is only one.

Mr. Younger: Yes, but if the Secretary of State meets one authority he would have to meet them all.

Mr. Mackenzie: This is the only local authority which is being treated in this particular way. Even to this day the Secretary of State has not indicated to the local authority what is happening to it. The first that we heard of this was when we read about it in the Scottish newspapers.

Mr. Younger: I am very sorry if any discourtesy has been shown. That is the last thing that I would have wished. Even perhaps those hon. Members who disagree strongly with this will understand that it is not physically possible for a Secretary of State to see everyone on a matter such as this when so many authorities are involved. If it is looked upon as discourtesy I am extremely sorry. I am sure that my right hon. Friend would want me to say that no discourtesy of any kind should be interpreted and that he would greatly regret it if it was taken in that way.
11.0 p.m.
I feel that I should touch on the general point raised by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars). I can confirm that what is proposed in the amendment does what he thinks it does. In other words, it removes from the Kyle and Carrick district the parishes of Dalrymple and Coylton, although they are

described in different language, and puts them in the Cumnock and Doon Valley district. Ayr Burgh is extremely anxious that both areas should be in the Kyle and Carrick district. Very strong views have been expressed on that point. Therefore, I could not agree at this stage that the village of Coylton should be taken from the Kyle and Carrick district. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand why that is so. I must stick to that one anyway. However, the other point is as he thought it to be.
I can also confirm that this boundary would not be satisfactory either way as it stands. Therefore, the matter will have to be referred to the Boundary Commission which I hope will make a sensible boundary which will take account of the views that have been expressed.
All these complicated matters being brought up together may create some difficulty for hon. Members to get clear in their minds what the situation is. Perhaps I can sum up the issues we must decide tonight, because this is the end of the matter.
First, we must decide which areas are not to go into the Greater Glasgow district or the Glasgow district as it now is. The amendments make it clear what those areas are.
Secondly, we must be clear about what I am recommending should be the pattern of districts for those areas which are to be excluded from the Glasgow district.
The pattern that I recommend is that there should be a Clydebank district and a Bearsden and Milngavie district, that the Bishopbriggs area should be added to a district comprising itself and Kirkintilloch, that the other half of Strathkelvin should become a district comprising Cumbernauld and the area about it, and that the Eastwood district should include Eaglesham. The Government also submit, with regret, that Rutherglen ought to become part of the Glasgow district. I hope to the mutual benefit of both although I fully understand the feelings of those concerned.
I hope that the House will accept that pattern as a reasonable compromise between many different views. This has been a genuine attempt by the Government to meet the criticisms that have been made. I am sorry that it should


get such scant thanks, but it is a genuine attempt to respond to the many views that have been expressed in both Houses and I hope it will be looked at in that light.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, may I put one point to him? Several hon. Members have changed their minds once during the progress of the Bill, but the hon. Gentleman is commending a view which shows that he has changed his mind six times.

Mr. Younger: I do not think that is a fair statement. I could also do some bogus arithmetic about hon. Gentlemen changing their minds. I have no objection to hon. Gentlemen changing their minds. However, I regret that those who have changed their minds should not be prepared to say that they have done so. I have tried to adduce the reasons and the evidence to prove that these solutions are right. I hope that the House will now agree to accept the amendment.

Mr. Ross: I must express my thanks to the Under-Secretary for what he has said because we can now entirely unite in opposing this proposal.
My hon. Friends are perfectly right. One got impression that the hon. Gentleman was treating the matter as if it were on Report. In fact, we are seeking to amend a Lords amendment and, for the first time in either House, discussing a conclusion that the Government say they have reached after long months of travail.
We all know that every suggestion put forward has been objected to by the Government. Now they come forward with this sudden conversion. It is one we have never been able properly to examine. If it is suddenly decided to create three new districts in Strathclyde, one with a population as small as 36,000, this calls for a reconsideration of all the other decisions about Strathclyde. There are many places with a better claim for district status than Eastwood. Whoever considered that as a viable local government unit?
The Committee showed what it thought of it and the Government said what they thought of it. Then it disappeared. Now it has suddenly reappeared. These things cannot be isolated and considered separately. Once again we are searching, looking for communities in size, viability and everything else in the sense of Wheatley and they are not there. Why did the Secretary of State not accept the will of the Committee and the will of another place? Instead we have this absurd proposal.
The Government lost the way completely after a certain stage. Obviously the same thing happened in another place. If it was weak in Committee in this House the Scottish Office has wonderful reserves of incompetence in another place. All we have been trying to do is to salve something for the Government. They tried to buy another place by this amendment. It was never even discussed. If they have any respect for themselves they would have returned to the position of the Bill as it was when it left this House. We all want to get back to that position. That means that we must, unfortunately, agree with the Government on Amendments 75 and 76. Thereafter I suggest that we on this side and perhaps those whom we have persuaded on the Government side, vote against the Government on every amendment from (a) to (m) with the exception of the important one to leave out Cadzow and insert Hamilton.

Mr. Younger: Did the right hon. Gentleman mean to include the amendment dealing with Coylton and Dalrymple?

Mr. Ross: No. We agree to the last two—(m) and (n).

Question, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment, put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment disagreed to.

Amendment proposed, as an amendment to the words so restored to the Bill: (a), in page 152, column 3, leave out lines 16 to 20.—[Mr. Younger.]

Question accordingly agreed to.

The House divided: Ayes 123, Noes 77.

Division No. 214.]
AYES
[11.10 p.m.


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Gummer, J. Selwyn
Parkinson, Cecil


Astor, John
Gurden, Harold
Percival, Ian


Atkins, Humphrey
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Pink, R. Bonner


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Benyon, W.
Haselhurst, Alan
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Havers, Sir Michael
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Biffen, John
Hawkins, Paul
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Biggs-Davison, John
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Russell, Sir Ronald


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Bray, Ronald
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Sillars, James


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
James, David
Simeons, Charles


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Jessel, Toby
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Jopling, Michael
Speed, Keith


Bryan, Sir Paul
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Spence, John


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N &amp; M)
King, Tom (Bridgewater)
Sproat, Iain


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Kinsey, J. R.
Stainton, Keith


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Kirk, Peter
Stanbrook, Ivor


Chapman, Sydney
Kitson, Timothy
Steel, David


Churchill, W. S.
Knight, Mrs Jill
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Knox, David
Sutcliffe, John


Clegg, Walter
Lambie, David
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Cooke, Robert
Le Marchant, Spencer
Tebbit, Norman


Cormack, Patrick
MacArthur, Ian
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Cricthley, Julian
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Crouch, David
Mather, Carol
Tilney, Sir John


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Tope, Graham


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Waddington, David


Drayson, Burnaby
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Ward, Dame Irene


Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Mitchell, Lt. -Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
 Warren, Kenneth

Eyre, Reginald
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Weatherill, Bernard


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Moate, Roger
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Fortescue, Tim
Money, Ernle
Wiggin, Jerry


Fowler, Norman
Monro, Hector
Winterton, Nicholas


Fox, Marcus
Montgomery, Fergus
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick



Morrison, Charles
Woodnutt, Mark


Gibson-Watt, David
Murton, Oscar
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Gower, Raymond
Neave, Airey



Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Younger, Hn. George


Green, Alan
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally



Grieve, Percy
Osborn, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Mr. Kenneth Clarke and


Grylls, Michael
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Mr. Hamish Gray.




NOES


Bennett, James(Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Marsden, F,


Brown, Robert C (N'c'tle-u-Tyne, W.)
Hardy, Peter
Mendelson, John


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Harper, Joseph
Mikardo, Ian


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Millan, Bruce


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hattersley, Roy
O'Malley, Brian


Carmichael, Neil
Hatton, F.
Oswald, Thomas


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Huckfield, Leslie
Palmer, Arthur


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Prescott, John


Concannon, J. D.
Hunter, Adam
Radice, Giles


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Davidson, ArthurJones, Dan (Burnley)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Judd, Frank
Skinner, Dennis


Dempsey, James
Kaufman, Gerald
Small, William


Doig, Peter
Kelley, Richard
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stott, Roger


Dunnett, Jack
Lomas, Kenneth
Strang, Gavin


Eadie, Alex
Loughlin, Charles
Swain, Thomas


Ellis, Tom
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson



Evans, Fred
McBride, Neil
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Ewing, Harry
McCartney, Hugh
Varley Eric G.



McElhone, Frank
Wainwright, Edwin


Faulds, Andrew
Machin, George
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mackenzie, Gregor
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Gilbert, Dr. John
Maclennan, Robert



Golding, John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gourlay, Harry
McNamara, J. Kevin
Mr. James Hamilton and


Grant, John D (Islington, E.)
Marks, Kenneth
Mr. Michael Cocks.

Amendment, proposed, as an amendment to the words so restored to the Bill: (b), in page 152, line 21, column 3, leave out from 'Lanark' to 'in' in line 29.—[Mr. Gregor Mackenzie.]

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment made, as an amendment to the words so restored to the Bill: (c) in page 152, line 21, column 3, leave out "burghs" and insert "burgh".—[Mr. Gordon Campbell.]

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 36, Noes 121.

Division No. 215.]
AYES
[11.20 p.m.


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Gourlay, Harry
Mackenzie, Gregor


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Hardy, Peter
Maclennan, Robert


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Hattersley, Roy
Marks, Kenneth


Dalyell, Tam
Halton, F.
Prescott, John


Davidson, Arthur
Huckfield, Leslie
Radice, Giles


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Hunter, Adam
Skinner, Dennis


Dempsey, James
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Steel, David


Doig, Peter
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Eadie, Alex
Kelley, Richard
Tope, Graham



Lambie, David



Evans, Fred
Lomas, Kenneth
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Ewing, Harry
McBride, Neil
Mr. Dick Douglas and


Faulds, Andrew
McCartney, Hugh
Mr. John Smith.


Gilbert, Dr. John
Machin, George





NOES


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Green, Alan
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Astor, John
Grieve, Percy
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Atkins, Humphrey
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Grylls, Michael
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Benyon, W.
Gummer, J. Selwyn
Parkinson, Cecil


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Gurden, Harold
Percival, Ian


Biffen, John
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Pink, R. Bonner


Biggs-Davison, John
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Haselhurst, Alan
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Bray, Ronald
Havers, Sir Michael
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Brinton, Sir TattonHawkins, Paul
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.DamePatricia
Russell, Sir Ronald


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
James, David
Simeons. Charles


Bryan, Sir Paul
Jessel, Tory
Small, William


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Jopling, Michael
Speed, Keith


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Spence, John


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Sproat, Iain


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray &amp; Nairn)
Kinsey, J. R.
Stanbrook, Ivor


Chapman, Sydney
Kirk, Peter
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Churchill, W. S.
Kitson, Timothy
Sutcliffe, John


Clerk, William (Surrey, E.)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Clegg, Walter
Knox, David
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Cooke, Robert
Le Marchant, Spencer
Tebbit, Norman


Cormack, Patrick
MacArthur, Ian
Thomas. John Stradling (Monmouth)


Critchley, Julian
McElhone, Frank
Tilney, Sir John


Crouch, David
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Waddington, David


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Mather, Carol
Ward, Dame Irene


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Warren, Kenneth


Drayson, Burnaby
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Weatherill, Bernard


Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Millan, Bruce
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Eyre, Reginald
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Wiggin, Jerry


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Mitchell, Lt. -Col. C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Winterton, Nicholas


Fortescue, Tim
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick



Moate, Roger
Woodnutt, Mark


Fowler, Norman
Money, Ernie
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Fox, Marcus
Monro, Hector
Younger, Hn. George


Galpern, Sir Myer
Montgomery, Fergus



Gibson-Watt, David
Morrison, Charles
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gower, Raymond
Murton, Oscar
Mr. Kenneth Clarke and


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Neave, Airey
Mr. Hamish Gray.

Amendment proposed, as an amendment to the words so restored to the Bill: (d), in page 152, line 22, column 3, leave out 'Bishopbriggs'.—[Mr. Gordon Campbell.]

Question put:—

Division No. 216.
AYES
[11.30 p.m.


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Grylls, Michael
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Astor, John
Gummer, J. Selwyn
Parkinson, Cecil


Atkins, Humphrey
Gurden, Harold
Percival, Ian


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Pink, R. Bonner


Benyon, W.
Haselhurst, Alan
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Havers, Sir Michael
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Biffen, John
Hawkins, Paul
Reed, Laurance (Bolton E.)


Biggs-Davison, John
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Bray, Ronald
Hutchison, Michael Clark
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Irvine, Bryan, Godman (Rye)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
James, David
Simeons, Charles


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Jessel, Toby
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Jopling, Michael
Speed, Keith


Bryan, Sir Paul
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Spence, John


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N&amp;M)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Sproat, Iain


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Kinsey, J. R.
Stanbrook, Ivor


Campbell,Rt.Hn.G.(Moray &amp; Nairn)
Kirk, Peter
Steel, David


Chapman, Sydney
Kitson, Timothy
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Churchill, W. S.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Sutcliffe, John


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Knox, David
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Cooke, Robert
Le Marchant, Spencer
Tebbit, Norman


Cormack, Patrick
MacArthur, Ian
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Critchley, Julian
McCartney, Hugh
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Crouch, David
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Tilney, Sir John


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Mather, Carol
Tope, Graham


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Waddington, David


Drayson, Burnaby
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Ward, Dame Irene


Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Warren, Kenneth


Eyre, Reginald
Mitchell, Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Weatherill, Bernard


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Fortescue, Tim
Moate, Roger
Wiggin, Jerry


Fowler, Norman
Money, Ernie
Winterton, Nicholas


Fox, Marcus
Monro, Hector
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Gibson-Wall, David
Montgomery, Fergus
Woodnutt, Mark


Gower, Raymond
Morrison, Charles
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Murton, Oscar
Younger, Hn. George


Gray, Hamish
Neave, Airey



Green, Alan
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Grieve, Percy
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Mr. Kenneth Clarke and


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Mr. Walter Clegg.




NOES


Bennett, James(Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Harper, Joseph
Mikardo, Ian


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Millan, Bruce


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hart, Rt. Hn Judith
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hattersley, Roy
Oswald, Thomas


Carmichael, Neil
Hatton, F.
Palmer, Arthur


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Huckfield, Leslie
Prescott, John


Concannon, J. D.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Dalyell, Tam
Hunter, Adam
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Davidson, Arthur
Jones, Barn (Flint, E.)
Sillars, James


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Kelley, Richard
Skinner, Dennis


Dempsey, James
Lambie, David
Small, William


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lomas, Kenneth
Strang, Gavin


Eadie, Alex
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Swain, Thomas


Evans, Fred
McBride, Neil
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Ewing, Harry
McElhone, Frank
Wainwright, Edwin


Faulds, Andrew




Galpern, Sir Myer
Mackenzie, Gregor
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Gilbert, Dr. John
Maclennan, Robert



Gourlay, Harry
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Mr. James Hamilton and


Hardy, Peter
Marks, Kenneth
Mr. Michael Cocks.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendment proposed, as an amendment to the words so restored to the Bill: (e), in page 152, column 3, leave

The House divided: Ayes 119, Noes 57.

out lines 33 to 35.—[Mr. Gordon Campbell.]

Question put:—

Question accordingly agreed to.

The House divided: Ayes 116, Noes 57.

Amendment proposed, as an amendment to the words so restored to the Bill: (g), in page 152, line 35, at end insert:
'Kilpatricks
In the county of Dunbarton—the burghs of Bearsden, Clydebank, Milngavie; the

Division No. 218.]
AYES
[11.49 p.m.


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hatton, F.
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Huckfield, Leslie
Sillars, James


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Skinner, Dennis


Concannon, J. D.
Hunter, Adam
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Steel, David


Davidson, Arthur
Kelley, Richard
Swain, Thomas


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Lomas, Kenneth
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Dempsey, James
McCartney, Hugh
Tope, Graham


Eadie, Alex
McNamara, J. Kevin
Wainwright, Edwin


Evans, Fred
Marks, Kenneth
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Faulds, Andrew
Mikardo, Ian



Gourlay, Harry
Millan, Bruce
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:



Oswald, Thomas
Mr. David Lambie and


Hardy, Peter
Palmer, Arthur
Mr. Harry Ewing.


Hattersley, Roy
Prescott, John





NOES


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Grieve, Percy
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Astor, John
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Atkins, Humphrey
Grylls, Michael
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Gummer, J. Selwyn
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Gurden, Harold
Parkinson, Cecil


Benyon, W.
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Percival, Ian


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Pink, R. Bonner


Biffen, John
Haselhurst, Alan
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Biggs-Davison, John
Havers, Sir Michael
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Hawkins, Paul
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Bray, Ronald
Hornsby-Smith.Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Hutchison, Michael Clark
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
James, David
Simeons, Charles


Bryan, Sir Paul
Jessel, Toby
Small, William


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Jopling, Michael
Speed, Keith


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Spence, John


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray &amp; Nairn)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Sproat, Iain


Chapman, Sydney
Kinsey, J. R.
Stanbrook, Ivor


Churchill, W S.
Kirk, Peter
Sutcliffe, John


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Kitson, Timothy
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Cooke, Robert
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Cormack, Patrick
Knox, David
Tebbit, Norman


Critchley, Julian
Le Marchant, Spencer
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Crouch, David
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Tilney, Sir John


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
MacArthur, Ian
Waddington, David


Digby, Simon Wingfield
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Ward, Dame Irene


Drayson, Burnaby
Mather, Carol
Warren, Kenneth


Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Weatherill, Bernard


Eyre, Reginald
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Wiggin, Jerry


Fortescue, Tim
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Winterton, Nicholas


Fowler, Norman
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Fox, Marcus
Moate, Roger
Woodnutt, Mark


Galpern, Sir Myer
Money, Ernie
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Gibson-Watt, David
Monro, Hector
Younger, Hn. George


Gower, Raymond
Montgomery, Fergus



Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Morrison, Charles
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Gray, Hamish
Murton, Oscar
Mr. Walter Clegg and


Green, Alan
Neave, Airey
Mr. Kenneth Clarke.

Question accordingly negatived.

district of Old Kilpatrick except the electoral divisions of Bowling, Dunbarton).—[Mr. McCartney.]

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 39, Noes 118.

Amendment proposed, as an amendment to the words so restored to the Bill: (h), in page 152, columns 2 and 3. leave out lines 36 to 47 and insert:
'Clydebank
In the county of Dunbarton—the burgh of Clydebank; the district of Old Kilpatrick (except the electoral divisions of Bowling, Dunbarton, and that part of the electoral division of Hardgate lying within the parish of New Kilpatrick).
Bearsden and Milngavie
In the county of Dunbarton—the burghs of Bearsden, Milngavie; that part of the electoral division of Hardgate lying within the parish of New Kilpatrick.
Bishopbriggs and Kirkintilloch
In the county of Dunbarton—the burgh of Kirkintilloch; those parts of the electoral divisions of Twechar and Waterside

Division No. 219.]
AYES
[11.58 p.m.


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Green, Alan
Noble. Rt. Hn. Michael


Astor, John
Grieve, Percy
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Atkins, Humphrey
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Baker, W. H K. (Banff)
Grylls, Michael
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Benyon, W.
Gummer, J. Selwyn
Parkinson, Cecil


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Gurden, Harold
Percival, Ian


Biffen, John
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Pink, R. Bonner


Biggs-Davison, John
Haselhurst, Alan
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Havers, Sir Michael
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Bray, Ronald
Hornsby-Smith.Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Hutchison, Michael Clark
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
James, David
Simeons, Charles


Bryan, Sir Paul
Jessel, Toby
Speed, Keith


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Jopling, Michael
Spence, John


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Sproat, Iain


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray &amp; Nairn)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Chapman, Sydney
Kinsey, J. R.
Sutcliffe, John


Churchill, W. S.
Kirk, Peter
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Kitson, Timothy
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Tebbit, Norman


Clegg, Walter
Knox, David
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Cooke, Robert
Le Marchant, Spencer
Tilney, Sir John


Cormack, Patrick
MacArthur, Ian
Waddington, David


Critchley, Julian
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Ward, Dame Irene


Crouch, David
Mather, Carol
Warren, Kenneth


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Weatherill, Bernard


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Drayson, Burnaby
Wills, Peter (Torrington)
Wiggin, Jerry


Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Mitchell,Lt.-Col. C.(Aberdeenshire, W)
Winterton, Nicholas


Eyre, Reginald
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

Woodnutt, Mark


Fortescue, Tim
Moate, Roger
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Fowler, Norman
Money, Ernie
Younger, Hn. George


Fox, Marcus
Monro, Hector



Gibson-Watt, David
Montgomery, Fergus
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gower, Raymond
Morrison, Charles
Mr. Paul Hawkins and


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Murton, Oscar
Mr. Hugh Rossi.


Gray, Hamish
Neave, Airey





NOES


Bennett, James(Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Dempsey, James
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Eadie, Alex
Hattersley, Roy


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Evans, Fred
Hatton, F.


Carmichael, Neil
Ewing, Harry
Huckfield, Leslie


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Faulds, Andrew
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)


Concannon, J. D.
Galpern, Sir Myer
Hunter, Adam


Dalyell, Tam
Gourlay, Harry
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Davidson, Arthur
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Kelley, Richard


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Hardy, Peter
Lambie, David

lying outwith the designated area of Cumbernauld New Town.

In the county of Lanark—the burgh of Bishopbriggs; the electoral divisions of Chryston, Stepps.

In the county of Stirling—The Western No. 3 district.

Cumbernauld
In the county of Dunbarton—the burgh of Cumbernauld; the electoral division of Croy and Dullatur and those parts of the electoral divisions of Twechar and Waterside lying within the designated area of Cumbernauld New Town.
In the county of Stirling—the burgh of Kilsyth; the electoral division of Kilsyth West; the polling district of Kilsyth East (Banton),'—[Mr. Gordon Campbell.]

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 114, Noes 55.

Lomas, Kenneth
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Steel, David


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Oswald, Thomas
Strang, Gavin


McCartney, Hugh
Palmer, Arthur
Swain, Thomas


McElhone, Frank
Prescott, John
Tope, Graham


Maclennan, Robert
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Wainwright, Edwin


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow. C.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


McNamara, J. Kevin
Sillars, James



Marks, Kenneth
Skinner, Dennis
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Mikardo, Ian
Small, William
Mr. James Hamilton and


Millan, Bruce
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Mr. Michael Cocks.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendments made to the words so restored to the Bill:

(j), in page 153, line 10, column 2, leave out 'Cadzow' and insert 'Hamilton'.

(k), in page 153, column 3, leave out lines 29 and 30.

(l), in page 153, line 30, columns 2 and 3, at end insert—
'Eastwood
In the county of Renfrew—the First district.'

(m), in page 154, line 13, column 3, at end insert—
'that part of the parish of Ayr within the district of Dalmellington; the polling district of Coylton'

(n), in page 154, line 16, column 3, at end insert—
'(except that part of the parish of Ayr within this district; the polling district of Coylton)'.—[Mr. Gordon Campbell.]

Clause 3

CHAIRMAN

Lords Amendment: No. 01, in page 3, line 7, at end insert "of each".

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment is on an addendum sheet simply because of a printing error. It is simply a drafting amendment which failed to be marshalled.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 1, in page 3, line 9, after "Glasgow" insert:
, the chairman of each other district council shall be known by such title as the district council, with the consent of the Secretary of State, may decide".

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The purpose of the amendment is to oblige the new district councils to sub-

mit for the Secretary of State's approval any title which they may wish to give their chairmen. Hon. Members will remember that this was discussed generally in Committee and it was felt that it was impossible to make a general prescription for the chairmen of districts although it was prescribed for other bodies in the new reorganisation. In the House of Lords there was a feeling that this might create a free-for-all in which a number of districts might take for themselves strange and inappropriate titles. The only solution, if this were to happen, appeared to be for a Minister to have the final say. We agree that there is a possibility of this kind of thing happening and that it would be prudent to keep the choice of the titles of chairmen within reasonable bounds. I therefore commend this amendment to the House.

Mr. Ross: The Secretary of State was unwilling to take on additional powers when I suggested that he should effect combinations of local authorities and other matters. Now he rises to the occasion by saying that he is prepared to be the umpire regarding the titles of various district councils.
I agree that we want to avoid a proliferation and confusion of titles of chairmen of district councils. My noble Friend Lord Hughes, in the other place, spoke of the strange titles that now exist. For example, he said that a place called Elgin tried to argue that it was entitled to have a lord provost rather than a provost. That is also true of Perth.
That being so, may we be told by the Secretary of State, who has a constituency connection with one of those places, whether he will consent to the title of lord provost for any district other than the cities that are specifically mentioned in the Bill? I think it is a mistake. We have laid down that the chairmen of regions and cities shall be known as conveners. With the exercise of a little imagination we could have laid down something for the district councils, even if it were to be simply "chairman". It


would have been better to have a limited variation of title.
I regret that we are still to have lord provosts. They are part of the past of local government. We should have made a clean sweep in that respect. After all, the new Glasgow district will not be the old Glasgow. The functions will certainly be very different. We should have made a complete change from the past. However, that having been decided, I should like to know what the Secretary of State has in mind as a suitable title for the chairmen of other district councils.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: While I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) about wanting to hear what the Secretary of State has to say about Elgin and Perth, may I point out that he is somewhat forgetful in that in Committee he did not want this kind of amendment. It is not that the Lords discovered this defect. In Committee we complained that there would be this complete and total confusion about the description of a district council chairman. This is irrespective of the argument about the dignity of the title lord provost, provost, or what one will. Indeed, we might call this the correction of the mulligatawny clause, because we pointed out the variety of titles that could be invented by people.
I welcome this improvement in the Bill, but I hope that the Secretary of State will give us some guidance on what he proposes to say to the local authorities in different parts of Scotland.
Apparently the Glasgow district is not now going to be the Glasgow district. All that Wheatley recommended was in the Bill as it left the House of Commons. It will now be easier to call the chairman of the Glasgow district the lord provost because it is territorially almost the same as the present city. That might not be true of other areas.
My right hon. Friend mentioned Rutherglen, which will be in. Therefore, the provostship of Rutherglen will disappear. But what about other places? Are we to have a provost of Eastwood?

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: With the leave of the House. When this was discussed in Committee I think we reached general agreement. Some of the districts will be

rural but there will be others which will be almost complete burghs. That was why it was felt best to leave that open, because there would be some districts where it would be appropriate for the title 'provost" to continue. From all sides of the House there has been a call to the Government to try to retain traditions and titles where appropriate, where a successor body clearly could continue with them. That is why it was left open for the chairmen of districts to be called chairmen. I agree that that is clearly unobjectionable. The same applies to "provost" when a new area is the equivalent of a previous burgh, and to "provost" or "convener" in a rural area. That is what county chairman have been known as over most of Scotland.
That was the reason for leaving it open. It was only when it was suggested in another place that obscure or exotic titles might be invented that it was thought there ought to be some break. The power suggested here for the Secretary of State is small compared with the enormous one which the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) referred to on the previous amendment.
He is asking about two particular cases. I would not wish to pre-judge the choice by the local authorities concerned or to say what a future Secretary of State might decide. This is a general reservation, an enablement for ministers to step in if something is clearly inappropriate. It is a refinement of what we agreed in Committee and I hope the House will accept it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 23

CHANGE OF NAME OF REGION, ISLANDS AREA OR DISTRICT

Lords Amendment: No. 2, in page 12, line 24, leave out "before 16th May 1980".

The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): I beg to move. That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The Government agree that the change of a local authority's name is a sufficiently important matter to justify retaining the requirement to obtain the Secretary of State's approval beyond the initial


five-year period provided for in the Bill. The argument was presented forcibly in another place and we are happy to accept the amendment.

Question put and agreed to

Clause 47

ALLOWANCES FOR ATTENDING CONFERENCES AND MEETINGS

Lords Amendment: No. 3, in page 24, leave out lines 27 and 28.

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): With this we can also discuss the following Lords Amendments; No. 4. in page 25, line 6, at end insert:
other than a water development board within the meaning of the Water (Scotland) Act 1967
and No. 5, in page 25, line 8, at end insert:
(5) In relation to any water development board as aforesaid, this section applies to a conference or meeting held inside or outside the United Kingdom and convened by any other person or body (other than a person or body convening it in the course of a trade or business or a body the objects of which are wholly or partly political) for the purpose of discussing matters which in the opinion of the board relate to their functions.
I call the attention of the House to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords Amendment, No. 5.

Mr. Younger: These amendments ensure that Clause 47 as to allowances to members for attending conferences and meetings will apply to the Central Scotland Water Development Board as they apply to a local authority. Although they refer to any water development board there is at present only one such board, the Central Scotland Water Development Board, and no other is contemplated.

Mr. Ross: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what is meant by Amendment No. 5?

Mr. Younger: By leave. There are three amendments. The first amendment removes paragraph (c) from subsection (1) because, even without (c), the clause will apply to a water development board, which is a body covered by Clause 49 (1)(d).
The second and third amendments deal with the scope of conferences or meetings to which the clause will apply in relation to a water development board. As the clause stood, subsection (4) puts a water development board in the same restricted position as a body other than a local authority. It covers:
a conference or meeting convened by one or more such bodies or by an association of such bodies ".
Under the Water (Scotland) Act 1967 a water development board is not restricted in this way but has the same powers as a county council. The amendments put this right. The new subsection (5) gives a water development board the same powers, so far as relevant, as a local authority has under subsection (3).

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to [Special entry].

Clause 52

SCHEMES

Lords Amendment: No. 6, in page 27, line 39, after "elections" insert "or other voting arrangements".

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a consequential amendment to an amendment accepted by the Government at Committee stage in the Commons to Clause 52(7).
It was proposed at that time by the Opposition that the provision whereby a district or islands authority, on receiving a petition for the setting up of a community council, should be required to hold "elections" for the purpose within six weeks should be amended to read "elections or other voting arrangements" to cover the case where some other mode of choosing council members might be thought appropriate. As a consequence of this, an amendment has to be made in Clause 52(2)(c), so as to stipulate that a community council scheme should contain details of "elections or other voting arrangements". A similar insertion has already been made in Clause 54(2), to cover the situation where the Secretary of State makes such a scheme in default of the local authority.

Mr. Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman say what is meant by the words "or other voting arrangements"? This matter was not raised in the earlier stages of the Bill and surely there must be something in the Government's mind in this respect.

Mr. Younger: With the leave of the House, may I say that what we have in mind is that some form of postal ballot might be more appropriate for the population than a more formal type of election. We wish to make the position more flexible so that that sort of arrangement, which would have to be agreed by all concerned, would be covered.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 7, in page 27, line 40, after "councils" insert—
( ) provisions concerning the procedures to be adopted by which the community councils on the one hand and the local and public authorities with responsibilities in the areas of the community councils on the other will keep each other informed on matters of mutual interest;".

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment bears a certain resemblance to several that were moved in Standing Committee to require authorities of various kinds to provide information to community councils so as to enable them to fulfil their function as consultative and representative bodies. These amendments were not accepted at the time because they tried to put an onus on the authorities concerned which could not be enforced.
This amendment seeks to tackle the problem from a different angle, and concentrates on the procedures for channelling information and comments between authorities and community councils. The district and islands councils which are responsible for drawing up the initial community council schemes are to include in them something about the lines of communication that are to be established.
I do not claim that this amendment is perfect, but one of its merits is that it is not in a form which could purport to compel an authority, or a community council, to do anything at any particular

time. It may also serve as a marker to remind everyone concerned of the need for effective procedures for passing information. The amendment will do no harm. It may do some good, and I invite the House to agree to it in the hope that it will be helpful on some occasions.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: This is another amendment which the Government had the strength to oppose in the other place. I agree with the sentiments of the amendment, but it will be difficult for community councils and district authorities to write in a formal procedure. This is almost like industrial relations. I know that the Government were not willing to run the risk of another defeat, but I think that this should be looked at "flexibly", to use the Minister's favourite expression.
This proposal bears a certain resemblance—I agree that it is a little remote—to some of the things that will come later. This is only a draft scheme. I hope that it will be interpreted in the broadest sense, and that not too much detail will be required, because some community councils might not want to spell out in great detail their lines of communication to the district authorities; in other words, they might want a free hand.
I do not think that this is all that important. It might have been better had it not been in the Bill, but, as it is in the draft scheme, and as the draft scheme will come to the Secretary of State for approval, I hope that the Government of the day—and I trust that it will be a Labour Government—will consider it sympathetically and not expect too much detail from either the district authorities or the community councils themselves.

Mr. Ross: I do not think that this provision can do very much harm, but I do not know whether it will do much good.
One of the difficulties is that it was only today that we saw the list of amendments, and we then had to get a copy of the Bill—not as it was amended by the other place, but the original Bill—to find out what this was all about.
It will be fairly easy for district authorities and community councils to


work out their lines of communication, but there is the other aspect for which, as far as I know, local authorities have no statutory responsibility, and that is the behaviour of other public authorities.
What are public authorities? They are not the local authorities, because they are already mentioned. They may be Government agencies. Does the term include the railways, or the Scottish passenger transport group? What does it include? What have the Government in mind? Does the Bill define a public authority in order to guide a local authority which has responsibility for this scheme? I presume that there is a proper definition somewhere in the Bill.

Mr. Younger: I hope that I may have the leave of the House to reply.
I note and agree with a great deal of what was said by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown). I shall try to arrange that in the advice that we give to community councils and district authorities in drawing up schemes the point made by the hon. Gentleman will be borne in mind, and also that it is considered by the Secretary of State when giving approval to schemes.
My answer to the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock is that I should not like to give an off-the-cuff definition of a public authority, but I have in mind the Highlands and Islands Development Board which might have responsibility in an area where a community council or a district authority is operating, and no doubt there are other examples. If the right hon. Gentleman would like a complete definition of "public authority", I shall be glad to let him have it.

Mr. Ross: "Public authority" must mean something. The Government have spent a long time worrying over this, and, having decided to accept the amendment, I should have thought that someone had decided what was meant by the term. Local authorities which have to draw up a scheme and comply with it need to know what is meant. Is there a definition in the Bill—that is my simple question—or will it be left to those concerned to decide which authorities are public and which are not?

12.30 a.m.

Mr. Younger: This is deliberately left wide because we do not want it to be too

finely defined. We wish it to include as many sorts of bodies as might wish to be in communication with community councils as possible. This is mentioned in Clause 51(2):
(2) In addition to any other purpose which a community council may pursue, the general purpose of a community council shall be to ascertain, co-ordinate and express to the local authorites, the views of the community which it represents, in relation to matters for which those authorities are responsible, and to take such action in the interests of that community as appears to it to be expedient and practicable.
I agree that a hard and fast definition of a public authority could be made. There are established legal opinions as to what constitutes a public authority and what does not. It is our view that we do not want to specify any more closely what these authorities are, because the whole nature of a community council is that it should be as flexible as possible and as widely drawn as possible so that any public authority with which it comes into contact can be included in this sort of provision.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Does the public authority include an area health board? Is there any danger that there might be either an overlapping or a clashing of the local health council and the community council? Is the Under-Secretary satisfied that there is no danger?

Mr. Younger: I cannot give a firm legal opinion, but speaking off the cuff I would think that an area health board would be a public authority. The hon. Gentleman spoke about clashing. What we are trying to arrange is that communications between these bodies should be recognised, should be effective, and should be good. The object of that will obviously be to prevent clashing of any kind.

Mr. Robert Hughes: There is a clearly established relationship between a local health council and an area health board in relation to matters of health. Will the community council as established under this clause be allowed to take up health matters with the area health board? If so, is there a danger of the community council's work and the local health council's work becoming merged and overlapping, or is this likely to lead to friction where there are two bodies in existence within the same area?

Mr. Younger: I do not think so. What we are talking about is not the giving of powers to any of these bodies to do anything about health or anything else. We are talking about communications between them. I do not think anything in the clause can affect anything other than the form of communications between these bodies. I do not think it involves any trespassing one upon the other.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 8, in page 28, line 24, leave out "30" and insert "20".

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment provides that, after a community council scheme has been approved, the minimum number of electors in any area who may petition the district or islands authority for the setting up of a community council is to be 20 instead of 30.
Obviously there can be no self-evident answer here, and the Government have always been aware of the possible difficulty to people living in the rural areas if the minimum figure were set too high. This was discussed in Committee. In the Lords my noble Friend accepted the amendment lowering the figure to 20 and no dissenting view was expressed. We are now inclined to think that it would probably be advantageous in the interests of flexibility to allow the number to be as low as 20. I therefore ask the House to accept the amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 56

ARRANGEMENTS FOR DISCHARGE OF FUNCTIONS BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES

Lords Amendment disagreed to: No. 9, in page 32, leave out lines 6 to 23 and insert:
(11) In accordance with such directions as the Secretary of State may give, the regional councils of Greater Glasgow, Lanarkshire. Argyll and Clyde and Ayrshire and Arran, shall combine or have joint consultations in regard to the discharge of any of their functions.

Amendment made, as an amendment to the words so restored to the Bill: In page 32, line 11, leave out "1971" and insert "1973".—[Mr. Gordon Campbell.]

Clause 64

APPOINTMENT, ETC. OF STAFF

Lords Amendment: No. 10, in page 35, line 43, at end insert:
(b) section 6(3) of the Representation of the People Act 1949 (registration officers);

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The effect of this amendment is to exempt the statutory provisions for the appointment of electoral registration officers from the provisions of Clause 64(4) under which local authorities will no longer be required or empowered to appoint specified officers—that is, town clerks, burgh surveyors, and so on. An exemption for registration officers was omitted from the list of exemptions in Clause 64(5) on the ground that the registration officer would be held to be an officer appointed for a specified purpose and not a specified officer.
On further consideration, however, it was thought desirable to insert an explicit exemption in the Bill in view of the terms of Section 6(3) of the Representation of the People Act 1949 which calls for the appointment of an officer known as "the registration officer". I invite the House to agree to the amendment but to carry on under the new system the practice which we have now.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 83

POWER OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO INCUR EXPENDITURE FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES NOT OTHERWISE AUTHORISED

Lords Amendment: No. 11, in page 44, line 17, leave out "a Lord Provost".

Mr. Younger: I beg to move. That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be convenient also to discuss Lords Amendment No. 12, in page 44, line 18, after "council" insert:
a chairman of a community council".

Mr. Younger: These amendments are designed to fulfil undertakings which Ministers gave on Report in this House to consider further the classes of persons sponsoring appeals which might be


assisted by a local authority under the powers of Clause 83. The lord provosts of the city districts will be effectively covered by the reference to
chairman of a district council
and it is accepted that local authorities' powers should be extended to enable them to contribute to appeals sponsored by a community council chairman.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 94

CAPITAL EXPENSES

Lords Amendment: No. 13, in page 50, line 18, after second "works" insert "or to such amount".

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be convenient also to discuss Lords Amendment No. 14, in page 50, line 23, leave out from first "or" to second "are" and insert
which, being of a capital nature,

Mr. Younger: Paragraph (b) of Clause 94(1) enables the Secretary of State to give his approval to the incurring of capital expenses
in relation to such project, or to such programme of works, or to such class of works, as may be so specified".
The first amendment would enable the Secretary of State to give a consent also in relation to a specified amount of capital expenses. Under present arrangements, a general consent is given to borrowing for minor capital items within an individual limit, at present, of £2,000. Such an arrangement is likely to be continued after reorganisation, and, while the clause is probably drawn in wide enough terms to permit this, the amendment puts the matter beyond any doubt.
The second amendment is to subsection (2) of Clause 94, which defines "capital expenses" for the purpose of subsection (1). Under the definition as it stands, all expenses which were to be met from a reserve fund would be treated as capital expenses requiring the Secre-

tary of State's consent, whether or not they were of a capital nature. The amendment deletes the reference to reserve funds and provides that, apart from expenses charged to capital or borrowing accounts, "capital expenses" means
any expenses … which, being of a capital nature, are to be met otherwise than out of current revenue".
This will be generally for the convenience of those operating the procedures.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 96

ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT

Lords Amendment: No. 15, in page 51, line 5, after "audited" insert
by a professional accountant, who is either an officer of the Commission for Local Authority Accounts or is an approved auditor appointed by the Commission".

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): I suggest that it will be for the convenience of the House if we take at the same time the following Lords Amendments:
No. 18, in Clause 97, page 52, line 16, leave out from "Audit" to end of line 18 and insert:
, officers of the Commission, being professional accountants, and approved auditors appointed by the Commission for the purpose of conducting audits or, as the case may be, a particular audit under this part of this Act, and "approved auditor" means an auditor who is qualified under subsection (7) below".
No. 19, in page 52, line 18, at end insert:
(7) An auditor is qualified for the purposes of subsection (6) above if, and only if, he is a member, or a firm all the members of which are members, of one or more of the following bodies, that is so say—

The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland.
The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales.
The Association of Certified Accountants.
The Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants.
The Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland.


Any other body of accountants established in the United Kingdom for the time being approved by the Secretary of State."

Mr. Younger: The general effect of these amendments is to impose requirements as to the qualifications of auditors appointed by the Commission for Local Authority Accounts to conduct local government audits.
The first amendment extends the general provision in Clause 96(4) that the accounts of every local authority are to be audited in accordance with subsequent provisions of the Bill by specifying that the audit is to be carried out by a professional accountant who is either an officer of the Commission or an approved auditor appointed by the Commission.
The second amendment alters the definition of auditor to refer to
officers of the Commission, being professional accountants
and to "approved auditors".
The third amendment applies the same definition of approved auditor as that in Section 164 of the Local Government Act 1972.
The effect of the amendments is to enable there to be assurance that the audit is carried out by those professionally qualified. This was suggested in the other place, and I ask the House to agree to these amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 97

ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION FOR LOCAL AUTHORITY ACCOUNTS IN SCOTLAND.

Lords Amendment: No. 16, in page 52, line 5, after "Commission" insert:
with such associations of local authorities as appear to him to be concerned and with such other organisations or persons as he may think appropriate".

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be convenient to take at the same time Lords Amendment No. 17, in page 52, line 5, leave out "them" and insert "the Commission".

Mr. Younger: These amendments require the Secretary of State, before giving general directions to the Commission for Local Authority Accounts as to the discharge of its functions, to consult—as well as the Commission—such local authority associations as appear to him to be concerned and such other organisations or persons as he may think appropriate.
Amendments requiring consultations with the local authorities rather than, as is usual, their associations were tabled both in Committee and on Report in the Commons, and I agreed then that a suitably worded amendment would be brought forward in the Lords. This is it, and I ask the House to agree to it.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 102

REPORTS TO COMMISSION BY CONTROLLER OF AUDIT

Lords Amendment: No. 20, in page 54, line 33, at end insert:
(2) Without prejudice to subsection (1) above, the Controller of Audit may make a report to the Commission on any matters arising out of or in connection with the accounts of a local authority in order that those matters may be considered by the local authority concerned or brought to the attention of the public, and shall send a copy of any report so made to any local authority which is named in that report.

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Clause 102 deals with reports by the Controller of Audit to the Commission for Local Authority Accounts. Formal reports will be made only on issues of importance which cannot be satisfactorily disposed of through consultation with the officials of the local authority concerned. These reports will be of two kinds, general reports and special reports.
It is envisaged that the special reports will, like the present interim reports, draw attention at the earliest possible opportunity to cases where, in the opinion of the controller of audit, any item of account is contrary to law or


there has been any other irregularity of the kinds specified. General reports, on the other hand, would be made on the completed audits of each year and would draw attention to matters of financial administration or accounting practice on which comment by the Commission might be helpful to local authorities or in the interest of ratepayers.
I ask the House to accept this amendment, which, broadly speaking, carries on the present practice into the new procedure for local government accounts.

Question put and agreed to.

12.45 a.m.

Mr. MacArthur: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that the whole House will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for explaining so courteously and clearly the purpose of the Lords amendments. May I, however, without discourtesy to him, simply point out that these amendments were presented and debated in another place? I wonder whether it might be the wish of the House that some of these amendments might perhaps be taken a little more formally and that we should concentrate our discussion on those amendments on which there might be disagreement between the two sides of the House. Having said that, I repeat that I am grateful for the help my hon. Friend is giving us.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.

Clause 103

ACTION BY COMMISSION ON REPORTS BY CONTROLLER OF AUDIT

Lords Amendment: No. 21, in page 56, line 5, leave out from beginning to "the" in line 10 and insert:
(3) Subject to subsection (4) below, if after consideration of the matters referred to in subsection (2) above the Commission find that any item of expenditure is contrary to law, or that there has been a failure to bring into account any sum which ought to have been brought into account, or that any loss or deficiency has been incurred or caused as mentioned in section 102(2)(a) of this Act, or that a local authority have not taken steps to remedy such a matter as is referred to in section 102(2)(b) of this Act, the Commission shall send the special report together with

their findings to the Secretary of State and may recommend him to make an order—

(a) requiring any person whom they find responsible for incurring or authorising that expenditure, or for that failure, or for that loss or deficiency, as the case maybe, to pay to the local authority concerned an amount not exceeding the amount of the said expenditure, or of the said sum, or of the said loss or deficiency; or, as the case may be,
(b) directing the authority to make such rectification of their accounts as appears to the Commission to be necessary.

(4)".

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we are taking the following Lords Amendments:
No. 22, in Clause 104, page 57, line 1, leave out from beginning to "acted" in line 32 and insert:
(1) Where recommendations are made to the Secretary of State under section 103(3) of this Act the Secretary of State may make an order giving effect to any recommendation, with or without modifications, or may decline to make such an order.
(2) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under subsection (1) above requiring a person to pay an amount to a local authority if the Secretary of State is satisfied that that person".
No. 22A, in page 57, line 40, leave out "paragraph (a) of".
No. 23, in page 58, leave out lines 2 to 5 and insert
subsection (1) above requiring a person to pay an amount to a local authority, forthwith cause a copy of that order to be sent—
(a) to that person;".
No. 24, in page 58, line 9, leave out "paragraph (a) of".
No. 25, in page 58, line 20, leave out "under paragraph (b) of "and insert" "in an order under".
No. 25A, in Clause 105, page 59, line 2, leave out "or of any direction given to them".
No. 66, in Clause 230, page 142, line 12, leave out "(a)".

Mr. Younger: I well appreciate what my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) has said, and I should like to meet the wishes of the House in this matter. Perhaps I may formally move some of the amendments and if any hon. Member, on either side of the House, who wishes to get


more information will indicate that fact, I shall be glad to fill it out. I therefore invite the House to agree to this group of amendments.

Mr. Ross: I do not think that we will disagree with the Lords on these amendments. At the same time, we may well have to ask for explanations. I am sure that the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur), who suggested that we should proceed rather more hurriedly and more informally in our consideration, would be the first to appreciate how long it will take us to go through the booklet of amendments if the Government did their job of explaining to the House of Commons exactly what the amendments did. I do not see why the Government should get out of the obligations and the consequences of doing things properly. If it were a normal occasion, we would probably have asked a long time ago that the proceedings should be adjourned and we might have had more time on these matters.
Many of these things are worthy of elucidation and may well be worthy of debate. We have been fairly generous in the debate on a fair number of these matters, but the Government cannot expect too much of us bearing in mind that we did not even have the opportunity until this morning of seeing the full list of amendments and far less of relating them to the Bill. It is asking a bit much that we should simply shut our eyes and let the Government have their way.
I am sure that the Under-Secretary has been up all the weekend practising his speeches and going over his brief to ensure that he was word perfect. Why should the world and the nation be denied the prose of these potent perorations he has been preparing? We want to get some of these things on the record; it may be important that we should. As far as possible we shall certainly not impede progress, but we would not be doing our job for our constituents if we blindly accepted that everything should go through without comment.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 108

DETERMINATION AND LEVY OF REGIONAL, DISTRICT AND GENERAL RATES

Lords Amendment: No. 26, in page 60, line 25, after "shall" insert "be".

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment it will be convenient to take Lords Amendment No. 26A, in Clause 109, page 61, line 14, leave out "of" and insert "to".

Mr. Younger: These two amendments correct printing errors and I ask the House to agree to them.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 113

PERSONS TO WHOM S. 112 APPLIES

Lords Amendment: No. 27, in page 64, line 4, leave out "the prescribed form" and insert:
such form as the rating authority may require".

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment it will be convenient to take also the following Lords Amendments:
No. 28, in page 64, line 26, leave out "Where" and insert:
Regulations under section 112 above may make provision as respects rate rebates where".
No. 29, in page 64, line 29, leave out from "subsection" to end of line 35.

Mr. Younger: Clause 113 requires rate rebate applications to be made "in the prescribed form". The first amendment leaves the form of application to the discretion of the rating authority. This is considered preferable since it agrees with the procedure for rent rebates and allowances. It will enable the authority, wherever possible, to treat an application for rent rebate or allowance also as an


application for rate rebate, something that hon. Members on both sides have thought was important.
I ask the House to agree to these three amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 114

VARIATION OF STANDARD SCHEME BY RATING AUTHORITY

Lords Amendment: No. 30, in page 65, line 39, leave out "in" and insert "for".

Mr. Younger: I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall take Amendment No. 31, in page 65, line 41, leave out "in" and insert "for".

Mr. Younger: Clause 114 enables a rating authority to vary the standard rate rebate scheme within a limit of 10 per cent, extra cost. The amendments are required because the limit needs to operate on the total rebates granted in respect of or for the financial year.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 115

GRANTS TOWARDS RATE REBATES

Lords Amendment: No. 32, in page 67, line 13, after "period" insert "or part thereof".

Mr. Younger: I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With it we shall also take the following Lords Amendments:
No. 33, in page 68, line 21, at end insert:
(5A) The assessor of a region in making up the valuation roll of the region shall distinguish in the roll lands and heritages

situated within the boundaries of each district of that region.
No. 34. in page 69, line 35, at end insert:
or any river purification board within the meaning of section 134 of this Act".
No. 35, in page 71, line 31, at end insert:
section 56(3) of the Water (Scotland) Act 1946;".
No. 36, in page 72, line 16, leave out "1971" and insert "1973".
No. 37, in page 74, line 35, at end insert:
, and, except where the context otherwise requires, references in sections 59 and 60 of this Act to a sub-committee shall include references to a school or college council.
No. 37A, in page 75, line 22, leave out subsection (2).
No. 85, in page 167, leave out lines 37 to 41.
No. 125, in page 252, line 20, leave out "49(4)" and insert "49(3) and (4)".
and No. 165, in page 284, leave out lines 49 to 53 and insert—"Section 49(3) and (4)".

Mr. Younger: Clause 115(1) provides for grants of 90 per cent, of the cost of rate rebates under the new scheme. The amendment is required because a rate rebate period could include the end of one financial year and the beginning of the next.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

New Clause A

EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENTS

Lords Amendment: No. 38, in page 75, line 28, after Clause 127 at end insert new Clause A:
A.—(1) Where, immediately before 16th May 1975, any educational endowment is to any extent vested in the existing local authority for an area specified in the first column of Table A below, that endowment shall on that day to that extent be transferred to and vest for the same purposes in the appropriate new local authority for the area specified in relation thereto in the second column of that Table.

TABLE A


Existing area
New area


County
Region or islands area


County of a city


Large burgh
District or islands area


Small burgh


District

(2) Where, immediately before 16th May 1975, any educational endowment is to any extent to be vested, by virtue of his office, in the holder of any office connected with an existing local authority specified in the first column of Table B below, that endowment shall on that day to that extent be transferred to and vest for the same purposes in the holder of the office, specified in relation thereto in the second column of that Table, of the appropriate new local authority as determined by reference to subsection (1) above.

TABLE B


Existing office-holder
New office-holder


Lord Provost
chairman of council


Provost


Convener of county


Chairman of district council


Magistrate
Councillor, or any other person nominated by the council


Councillor


Chairman of or member of committee


Any specified officer
The corresponding office or (if there is no such officer) the proper officer.

(3) Where, immediately before 16th May 1975, any power with respect to an educational endowment is vested in an existing local authority, or (by virtue of his office) in the holder of an office connected with such an authority, that power shall on that day be transferred to and vest in the appropriate new local authority or (as the case may be), in the new office-holder of that authority, as ascertained by reference to subsections (1) and (2)
above.

(4) Subject to the provisions of the governing instrument of an educational endowment, where as the result of the election of a local authority occurring after 16th May 1975, it is necessary for a person to be nominated by the authority or by a committee thereof to be vested (to any extent) with the endowment, in terms of subsection (2) above, or to be vested with any power, in terms of subsection (3) above, that person shall be so nominated at the first meeting of the authority or committee held after it has been elected or appointed; and in such a case the person who (to the said extent) was last vested with the endowment or, as the case may be, who was last vested with the power, before the meeting shall continue therein until the date of the meeting.

(5) In this section, unless the context other wise requires, expressions used in Part VI of the Education (Scotland) Act 1962 have the same meaning as in that Part, and "the appro-

priate new local authority" means, in relation to an existing local authority, the new authority whose area comprises the whole or the greater part of the area of the existing authority: and if, in any case, there is a dispute as to such appropriate authority, or as to the person or persons corresponding to an existing office-holder or office-holders for the purposes of this section, it shall be taken to be such new local authority or, as the case may be, person or persons as the Secretary of State may direct.

(6) Nothing in this section shall affect any other power to reorganise any educational endowment or otherwise to alter the provisions of any trust."

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office (Mr. Hector Monro): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall take Amendment No. 61, in page 134, line 38, after "property" insert:
which is subject to the provisions of section (educational endowments) or (property held on trust) of this Act or property".

Mr. Monro: The purpose of the new clause is to transfer to the appropriate regional, islands or district authorities educational endowments vested in existing local authorities. Its purpose is also to replace by appropriate representatives of the new authorities members or representatives of the existing local authorities who are included on the governing bodies of other educational establishments.

Mr. Carmichael: Why is it necessary at this late stage to bring forward a new clause of this length? I can see that the purpose is simple enough, but why was it missed in the first place? It is strange that it was not included originally. It is further evidence of the slackness of the Bill.

Mr. Monro: It may have been overlooked in earlier stages but it is important and it was taken up by the Government in another place. It is important that there should be a transitional period for these endowments, which will have to be looked at again in the not-too-distant future when the area schemes are worked out so that endowments now existing can cover the areas which those who gave them intended them to cover.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I am not clear about this. It looks as though this


matter was overlooked in previous discussions. Surely there must be some problems. Do not some endowments specify that they shall be used, say, for children of people in certain areas with romantic names like Monro or Campbell and so on? Is there not some technical difficulty here, in that some of the endowments may not be related to an area but to people who are living in an area, or in that it may not be appropriate to transfer endowments? For example, there may be endowments specifying that only those living within the existing boundaries of the city of Glasgow should benefit.

Mr. Monro: The hon. Gentleman is right. I tried to indicate as much to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Woodside (Mr. Carmichael). We are talking about a large number of endowments—perhaps 1,500 or more. They all have to be looked at. It will take a very long time but it is important that those who gave the money for them for particular areas or particular groups of children, for example, should have their wishes honoured.
Once the regions have settled down and the education areas are straightened out, we must try perhaps to bring in new legislation to deal with this point so that the money goes to the areas or groups for which it was meant in the first place.

Mr. Ross: This is a fascinating document. We are dealing here with educational endowments. Table A refers to an existing area as "county of a city". But as far as I know counties of cities are to be replaced by districts. The Government are not, however, giving power to the new district area which was formerly representative of the city. Again Table A refers to "large burgh", "small burgh" and "district". They go to districts—and districts are not to be education authorities, since education is to be a function of the regions.
I wonder whether, in the haste of this operation, there has not been a slip-up. We have power to make manuscript amendments. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like us to talk on a bit while he considers whether a manuscript amendment would be desirable. We have already been told that one kind of au-

thority is going to have really no connection with the other—in other words, the district authority, whose function will not include education, will not be interfering with the regional authority or in any way representing it. Perhaps it would be better to regulate this in relation to the new education authorities themselves within whose areas the former large burghs, small burghs and districts were. But if we are not regularising the position, then we need to insert something to cover the point.

1.0 a.m.

Mr. Monro: I note what the right hon. Gentleman has said. Certainly, the regional authority has complete charge of education and the regions will have to be certain of the running of the endowments after 1975. That is the purpose of this new Clause after Clause 127.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: My hon. Friend and I have recently had some correspondence on the question of endowments, and he has given me certain assurances. Having read through this new Clause I should like to ask him whether he can reassure me, in view of what he has just said. He mentioned a figure of approximately 1,500 endowments which have to be dealt with. Will the introduction of this new Clause mean that the work currently being carried out will have to be done again?

Mr. Monro: Area schemes have been worked out according to the new procedures, under the regional education authorities. This may not affect my hon. Friend's area at all. We are thinking more of areas around Glasgow where present education areas will be overtaken by the new boundaries. The situation in my hon. Friend's area should not change. We will look at this point as quickly as we can, although it is bound to take some time in view of the large number of endowments involved.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 129

HOUSING

Lords Amendment: No. 39, in page 75, line 35, leave out "-1972" and insert "to 1973".

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following Lords Amendments:
No. 68, in Clause 233, page 144, line 31, leave out "1972" and insert "1973".
No. 90, in Schedule 12, page 183, line 22, after "allowances" insert:
—

(a) for the word '1947' there shall be substituted the word '1973';
(b)".

No. 91, in Schedule 13, page 183, line 37, leave out "1947" and insert "1973".

Mr. Campbell: These are drafting amendments and they take into account the passing of the Housing (Scotland) Amendment Act 1973. The amendments to Schedules 12 and 13 take into account the definitions of a joint board and a joint committee inserted in Clause 232 at the Commons Committee stage.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 134

PREVENTION OF RIVER POLLUTION

Lords Amendment: No. 40, in page 78, line 25, leave out "the councils aforesaid" and insert "regional councils".

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following Lords Amendment:
No. 95, in Schedule 16, page 204, line 29, leave out paragraph 1 and insert:
1. In section 6(1) (financial provisions) for the words 'counties and large burghs whose districts' there shall be substituted the words 'regions whose areas' and for the words 'administrative scheme of' there shall be substituted the words 'order constituting'.

Mr. Campbell: The purpose of Amendment No. 95 to Schedule 16 is to provide for the expenses of a river purification board, so far as they are not defrayed out of revenue, to be defrayed by the regions whose areas are comprised wholly or partly in that of the board in proportions to be specified in the order constituting the board. The first amendment, No. 40, to Clause 134 is consequential.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 145

POLICE

Lords Amendment: No. 42, in page 84, line 24, after "or" insert "in subsection".

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): With this amendment we are to take the following Lords Amendments:
No. 43, in page 84, line 26, leave out "that subsection" and insert "subsection (1) above".
No. 44, in page 84, line 44, leave out "section" and insert "subsection".

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: These are simple drafting amendments which are required for clarity as a consequence of certain amendments which were made on Report in the Commons.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 147

WATER

Lords Amendment: No. 45, in page 88, line 23, at end insert:
That part of the former County of Kincardine which lies within both the Grampian Region and the region of the East of Scotland Water Board, Tayside.

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The purpose of this amendment is to make South Kincardineshire an "added area" of the Tayside region for water supply purposes. The Government announcement in March 1972 on water reorganisation included Kincardineshire among the areas with special difficulties which it was proposed to meet by "added area" arrangements; South Kincardineshire was to be added to Tayside for water supply. There were, however,


strong representations against this from Members of Parliament, the North-East of Scotland Water Board and other authorities in the North East, and I met a deputation from the North-East Board about it.
After considering all the arguments, it was finally decided to reverse the decision previously announced and to provide that South Kincardineshire should be part of the Grampian region, which would be free to make arrangements with the Tayside region for a bulk supply of water for South Kincardineshire. As introduced, therefore, the Bill did not include provision for a South Kincardine added area.
For South Kincardine, either an "added area" arrangement or a bulk supply would be practicable, but Ministers considered the balance of advantage to lie in following the principle of having a single local authority in control of all the infrastructure services including water supply. The East of Scotland Water Board objected to the Government's change of view and on 1st February I told a deputation from the board that their points would all be most carefully considered, although the outcome would depend in some measure on developments in Parliament on the Bill, particularly as regards the future of Fife. Lord Hughes made his amendment in the Lords and it was passed without any discussion.
There is force in the arguments on both sides, but although either a bulk supply or an added area arrangement is praticable in this case, in the Government's view the balance of advantage lies in following the principle laid down by the Wheatley Commission and accepted by the Government as the basis of their proposals for local government reform, that a single local authority should have control over all infrastructure services including water supply. The East of Scotland Board's views have to be taken into account as well as those of the North-East of Scotland Board, and both points of view carry some weight.
There is a matter of very difficult judgment here and, as one can see, we have indeed had great difficulty in coming to a decision. However, we feel firmly that the right decision is not as

proposed in this amendment and that we should go back to the Bill as it left the Commons. I therefore ask the House to disagree with the Lords amendment.

Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: I moved the original amendment which found endorsement in the Lords. I suggest to my hon. Friend that it was not without discussion. It was discussed, admittedly at a rather late hour, in the Lords and as a result the amendment was made to the Bill at that stage without a Division under the rather different procedures of the other place, as I understand it.
I have always felt basically that this dilemma stems from what I have always regarded as a mistaken decision to deviate from the recommendations of the Wheatley Commission on the definition of the Tayside area, but that is a long way past.
The Government have never convincingly argued why we should in this case—and I think it is the only significant case—vary from the principle of source-to-tap supply in a single water board area. I was not convinced by my hon. Friend's arguments in Committee, and I cannot pretend that they sound any more convincing on second hearing. I have checked with the East of Scotland Water Board today, and it is quite unmoved in its conviction that the Bill was far better as it emerged from the Lords than it would be if the course recommended by my hon. Friend were followed.
I believe that the citizens of South Kincardineshire will come to regret the decision which the House is asked to take on their behalf tonight, because they will be reliant on a water supply from an area within which they are not represented and whose essential responsibilities are other than those of assuring the water supplies for that area. I do not see any prospect that the Grampian area will be capable of assuming responsibility for that water supply in the foreseeable future.
But I accept that this is one of those cases in which perhaps we must try to see how matters work out. I believe that if we accept the Government's recommendation we shall have made a wrong decision, but I do not wish further to delay our proceedings or to divide the House against that decision.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I believe that it was as long ago as 18th July that the other place made the amendment. Whenever it was, the East of Scotland Water Board immediately represented to me that their lordships were mistaken, and that the view it had successfully put to the Minister earlier was correct. I am grateful to the Government for putting down the motion to disagree with their lordships, and I have great pleasure in supporting them.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 149

PUBLIC TRANSPORT

Lords Amendment: No. 46, in page 90, line 39, at end insert:
(4) References in this section to the Greater Glasgow Passenger Transport Area and the Greater Glasgow Passenger Transport Authority include references to that Area or Authority as varied by an order made under section 9 of the said Act of 1968.

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment makes it possible for the Secretary of State, if he should so decide, to alter the name of the Greater Glasgow Passenger Transport Area and Authority.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 159

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT SERVICES

Lords Amendment: No. 47, in page 95, line 38, leave out Clause 159.

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment removes the clause relating to the youth employment service, which was a contingency provision until the enactment of the Employment and Training Act 1973, which itself deals with arrangements for the provision of the service by the new authorities.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 169

BURIAL GROUNDS

Lords Amendment: No. 50, in page 99, line 31, at end insert:
(2) The functions of councils under the Church of Scotland (Property and Endowments) Acts 1925 and 1933 shall be transferred to and vest in islands and district councils in accordance with the amendments to those Acts set out in Part II of Schedule 26 to this Act.

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we are taking also the Lords Amendments Nos. 122, 124, 126, 157, 161 and 166.

Mr. Younger: The amendments repeal as much as possible of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1894, the vast majority of whose provisions are spent, and transfer the powers in relation to parish churchyards presently exercised by county and burgh councils to the new district and island councils.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 182

MISCELLANEOUS PLANNING FUNCTIONS

Lords Amendment: No. 54, in page 107, line 27, leave out "district planning functions" and insert:
functions of islands and district councils".

1.15 a.m.

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment seeks to transfer responsibility for the licensing of caravan sites from general or district planning authorities, as provided for in the Bill, to the new district councils.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 186

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS OF LICENSING (SCOTLAND) ACTS

Lords Amendment: No. 55, in page 111, line 1, at beginning insert:
(1) The Secretary of State shall not make any order under section 31 of the Licensing


(Scotland) Act 1959 (supplementary and local provisions) as that section had effect immediately before the passing of this Act; and no alteration shall be made in any licensing court or court of appeal by reason of any increase or decrease of population until those courts are reconstituted in terms of the said Act of 1959 as amended by subsequent enactments (including this Act).

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The purpose and effect of this amendment is to enable existing licensing courts and courts of appeal to function until the reform of local government unaffected by changes in population, which might otherwise require the establishment of new licensing courts for the relatively short period to 16th May 1975 when they would be superseded by the new licensing court arrangements in the Bill. The amendment is thus intended to avoid a short-term upset to the licensing court system by "freezing" the present position until the new licensing courts provided for in Clause 185 come into being in 1975.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 188

MISCELLANEOUS LICENSING, REGISTRATION AND RELATED MATTERS

Lords Amendment: No. 56, in page 111, line 11, after last "the" insert:
War Charities Act 1940 (registration authority for war charities) and the

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we are to discuss Lords Amendment No. 57.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: These are minor technical amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 209

REMOVAL OR RELAXATION OF CONTROLS AFFECTING CERTAIN LOCAL AUTHORITY FUNCTIONS

Lords Amendment: No. 59, in page 123, line 34, at end insert:
(5) In this section "local authority" includes a Passenger Transport Executive.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The title of the Bill expressly defines one of its purposes as the amendment of Part II of the Transport Act 1968 and it is therefore not inappropriate that this clause, which gives the Secretary of State power to remove or relax controls affecting certain local authority functions by affirmative resolution order, should also cover controls affecting passenger transport executives. This amendment therefore includes passenger transport executives in the definition of local authority for the purposes of this clause.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: The Minister has read his brief very carefully, but may I ask what it means? This seems to be putting a passenger transport executive on a par with a local authority in the relaxation of the amount of fees which may be charged. What kind of fees are we talking about? What is the responsibility of the passenger transport executive?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: This is quite simply to give a greater freedom. The practical consequences may not be very great because most of the controls over passenger transport executives are being withdrawn now. However, it seems reasonable to make provision for the possibility. This is also in keeping with the Government's declared view that the regional authority now assuming the responsibilities formerly exercised by a passenger transport authority should be as free as possible to conduct its own affairs. To some extent the hon. Gentleman is right. There will not be great practical consequences from this. But it is made absolutely clear that if points arise where greater freedom should be exercised, that should be enjoyed by the passenger transport executives in the same way as the regional authority.

Mr. Brown: The Minister is appealing to my philosophical prejudice by saying that someone will have greater freedom, but I do not know what we are talking about. What are the relaxations? What practical examples can the Minister give relating to the Passenger Transport Executive?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As I said a moment ago, the practical effect is not terribly great. Perhaps I could look further into some of the practical points and write to the hon. Gentleman letting him know what could take place.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the House is not seeking to resolve itself into a Committee. Is the hon. Gentleman going to put a question?

Mr. Brown: Yes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the Minister had sat down.

Mr. Brown: Before the Minister sits down. I am not trying to be flippant. There is great public interest in the doings of the Passenger Transport Executive. It might have asked for this, or it might be that this is required because of the legacy of taking over from the Glasgow Corporation Transport Department. There is no urgency about it, but there is general interest in the doings of the Passenger Transport Executive.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause B

TWEED FISHERIES COMMISSIONERS

Lords Amendment: No. 60, in page 125, line 45, at end insert new Clause B:
B.—(1) On 16th May 1975 each person holding office as a representative commissioner under the Tweed Fisheries Act 1969 shall go out of office.
(2) The function of appointing representative commissioners under the said Act of 1969 shall be transferred to the district councils of Berwickshire, Roxburgh, Ettrick and Lauderdale and Tweeddale and the Berwick on Tweed District Council.
(3) The said Act of 1969 shall have effect subject to the amendments set out in Schedule A to this Act.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move. That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment it will be convenient to take Lords Amendments No. 121 and 189.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Under Section 5(1) of the Tweed Fisheries Act 1969 certain local authorities in the River Tweed catchment area were authorised on or before 1st February 1970 to appoint specified numbers of people to act as representative commissioners for the purpose of the Act. The new clause and schedule and consequential amendments therefore transfer the function of appointing representative commissioners under the 1969 Act to the new district councils. The existing commissioners will be removed and new ones appointed by the new district councils will act on and after 16th May 1975 as the commissioners for the purposes of the 1969 Act.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Was this the fish that nearly got away and was missed in all the deliberations that took place? I assume that this is part of the general tidying up which is being done and there is nothing more significant than that.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Often it is only the tiddlers that get away. On this occasion it might have been rather more than tiddlers.

Mr. Carmichael: Whales.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I do not think that whales have yet been caught in the Tweed. Not even my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has caught any whales in the Tweed. However, there are other fish in that river. This might have been the salmon that got away, but we managed to get it in time. Not being an angler, perhaps I should not claim any credit for that.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.

New Clause C

PROPERTY HELD ON TRUST

Lords Amendment: No. 62, in page 135, line 16, at end insert new Clause C:
C.—(1) All property held on trust immediately before 16th May 1975 by

(a) an existing local authority, or
(b) a councillor and a specified officer of an existing local authority,
shall on that day be transferred to and vest (subject to the same trust) in the appropriate islands or district council.
(2) The council in whom property is vested by virtue of subsection (1) above shall nominate a sufficient number of their councillors to act as trustees of that property and in so doing shall have regard to the terms of the trust deed; and where the property is held immediately before 16th May 1975 by the persons mentioned in subsection (1)(b) above, the council shall nominate the proper officer as one of the trustees.
(3) All property held on trust immediately before 16th May 1975 by a specified officer of an existing local authority shall on that day be transferred to and vest (subject to the same trust) in the proper officer of the appropriate islands or district council.
(4) Where, immediately before 16th May 1975, property is held on trust by the holder of an office, whether as a councillor or a specified officer, connected with an existing local authority or existing local authorities and any other person, the appropriate islands or district council or (where the area to which the trust relates comprises the areas of more than one existing local authority) the appropriate islands or district councils shall, on the application of the trustees, nominate a sufficient number of their councillors to act in place of such holder and in so doing shall have regard to the terms of the trust deed, and, where the terms of the trust deed so require, the said council or councils shall nominate the proper officer as one of the trustees.
(5) In this section "appropriate islands or district council" means, in relation to an existing local authority, the islands or district council whose area comprises the whole or the greater part of the area of the existing local authority, and "appropriate islands or district councils" shall be construed accordingly.
(6) This section shall not apply to property which is subject to section (educational endowments) of this Act.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The new clause seeks to ensure that the new authorities will be able to fulfil duties in relation to trusts held by existing authorities or in which existing authorities have an interest. The amendment to Clause 221 is consequential. It

will relieve anxiety, which I have had expressed to me in my constituency capacity, about the future of the numerous small trusts throughout the country. The provisions will not deal with the circumstances of every trust, because the variations in the choice of trustees are endless, but I believe that they will save an application to the court in a great many cases which might otherwise arise. This is a helpful new clause which it would be to our benefit to accept.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: You rightly rebuked me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when I inadvertently sought to make this debate into a Committee stage. I am sure you will appreciate that since I first saw these amendments yesterday afternoon and we have been engaged in battles about Strathclyde and the Greater Glasgow district since, it has been extremely difficult to raise the matter earlier. I am not naturally suspicious of any Government but it seems that these could be fairly important matters which could involve a lot of legal dispute. It appears as if we have all slipped up in not examining in greater detail some of the later clauses, particularly in Committee.
Because some things need to be done at short notice—the Minister said he had received some constituency queries but they must have been of recent vintage—there is bound to be some area of doubt or argument when we look at the individual endowments. This could cause concern. All I ask is that someone in future will look at what we are doing. There may be a need for flexibility or even amendment to the law in view of the no doubt peculiar problems which will arise if someone decides to test the legality of what we are doing.
I have no personal knowledge here but I assume that if it comes to dealing with wills all sorts of situations could arise creating legal problems—as happened with museum charges. I hope, if we do not know what we are doing, we are safeguarding the future and recognising that we may have to look at this again.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: By leave of the House I will reply. It might be helpful if I explain further. The background is that many local authorities are asked to take on the duties of trustees, or are among the trustees of charitable trusts.


In such cases the trust deed will name as trustees, for example, the provost and magistrates of such and such a burgh, or the provost, magistrates and town clerk, or whatever. The problem which was brought to our notice during the passage of the Bill through this House is how to secure the continuity of these officers and the authorities they represent when they cease to exist in May 1975.
No particular difficulty will arise where the trust deed merely requires the local authority to nominate representatives to act as trustees. This is something we had anticipated and dealt with in Clause 214. Where the town council or officers are named this would not work. In those cases existing trustees would have to approach the courts for a variation in the terms of the trust deed, to allow it to continue its function.
Some of the smaller charitable trusts might find it difficult to afford the court action involved. This clause is designed to enable the trusts to continue operating with the minimum necessary changes in administration. I do not claim that this will answer every variation and type of trust but we believe it will meet the great generality of cases, avoiding recourse to the courts. Where there is doubt the trust will have recourse to the courts to decide what happens after May 1975. I hope that the House will accept the amendment.

1.30 a.m.

Mr. Ross: I am thinking of one particular trust called the Marr Trust, which built the Marr College. I am drawing on memory, but I think that one of the trustees was the Provost of Troon and another was the Town Clerk of Troon. It was all localised. That was a very important trust which handled more than £250,000, most of which was expended on building the Marr College. Will the clause mean that the new district council will nominate someone on that council to take over the task of trustee or will an official of the district council take over that task? It used to be a very important trust—so important that some people were not anxious to relinquish the office to successors.
It may be that all this is now out of date, but this touches upon a fascinating part of Scottish history which these days

is sometimes ignored. There may be other such cases. If that is so, are those cases covered?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: With the leave of the House, may I say that I would not presume to answer the right hon. Gentleman's specific question about the Marr Trust. I do not know the terms of the trust and therefore I am not in a position to judge what the precise effect will be. We are seeking to ensure continuity where a trust is vested in a local authority. Subsection (1) deals with this matter and all property held in trust will vest in the appropriate islands or district council. It does so subject to the same trust as at present and there is no change in the purpose of the trust. Subsection (3) goes on to deal with the transfer to the proper officers of the islands or district council of any property held on trust by a specified officer of an existing local authority. We have tried in the clause to deal with a variety of situations either where property is vested in the town council or in officers of the town council. I hope that in this way we have managed to deal with the generality of cases.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 223

LOCAL ACTS AND INSTRUMENTS

Lords Amendment: No. 64, in page 138, line 41, leave out "any telephone undertaking".

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment removes a reference in the local Acts clause to "telephone undertaking" among the various categories of statutory undertaking. There are no local telephone undertakings in Scotland.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: Surely there are no local undertakings which supply electricity, gas or hydraulic power. I do not understand why an exception is being made to some other public authority. I do not know the significance of the amendment.
The Minister said that the Post Office is different. It may be that the wording


is wrong, but the amendment refers to "any telephone undertaking". I do not see the difference between that and gas and electricity undertakings, and the Minister should tell us more about this than he has done so far.

Mr. Younger: If I have the leave of the House to reply, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I am advised that a telephone undertaking refers to a private or local telephone undertaking, and as there are none of those in Scotland it is not thought necessary to have this provision in the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause D

ABOLITION OF FIARS COURTS FOR COUNTIES, ETC.

Lords Amendment: No. 65, after Clause 225, in page 140, line 6, at end insert new Clause D:
D.—(1) The courts for striking the fiars prices for the counties of Scotland shall no longer be held, and accordingly no payment becoming due after the appointed day shall be calculated by reference to fiars prices.
(2) Subject to the provisions of section 12 of the Conveyancing (Scotland) Act 1924 (abolition and commutation of grain, etc. feuduties) the amount of any periodical payment becoming due after the appointed day which would, if it had become due immediately before that day, have fallen to be ascertained by reference to fiars prices, shall be a sum in money representing the average value of the payment due during the last three years before that day.
(3) In the event of the parties failing to reach agreement as to the commutation into money of any payment by reference to subsection (2) above, either party may apply to the sheriff for a decree declaring the commuted value in money of the payment.
(4) Where any payment, the amount of which falls to be ascertained by reference to subsection (2) above, is exigible from any person by virtue of an interest in land, the title to which may be recorded in the Register of Sasines, any agreement relative thereto and any decree pronounced under subsection (3) above shall, on being duly recorded in the appropriate register, be binding upon all persons having interest.
(5) Any valuation or question mentioned in subsection (4) of section 75 of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1949, falling to be decided by reference to a date after the appointed day, which would, if it had fallen to be decided by reference to a date immediately before that day, have been decided by reference to fiars prices, shall be decided in such manner as the parties may by agreement determine or, failing such agreement, shall,

notwithstanding the provisions of that subsection, be decided by arbitration under that Act.
(6) In this section "the appointed day" means the day appointed under section 235 of this Act for the coming into operation of this section.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take Lords Amendment No. 169, in Schedule 28, page 287, line 25, column 3, at end insert "(4),".

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This may be said to be not the fish that got away, but the bushel or sheath that almost got away. The clause makes provision for the abolition of fiars courts for counties and the determination of the amount of payment by reference to fiars prices. Fiars prices struck for any county in Scotland—if I may explain, particularly to those not from country areas—are the sheriff's assessment of the average prices of the different sorts of grain produced in the county at the last harvest.
Here I must declare an interest as one who is duty bound to make his return to the sheriff each year of the bushel weight of the grain crop and the price at which it is sold. The prices struck by the sheriff in each county are relevant only to the county for which they are produced and the year in which they are struck. They are used to calculate the current cash value of various payments which were once made in kind—a very old basis—but are now made in money.
While they are still used for a variety of purposes, and are still struck, the occasions when they are used even for these purposes are not many, and are becoming rarer each year. Because they are at present struck in respect of each individual county, the disappearance of counties as administrative units in the reorganisation to which the Bill gives effect entails that alternative provisions are required. The Schedule 28 repeal is consequential to that.
I could, if the House wished it, go through the subsections of the new clause, but I think that they are clear. They give effect to the general purposes which I have mentioned. I shall be delighted to answer any specific questions about how the clause will work.

Mr. Ross: The nub of the matter is that the prices are to be struck on the basis of the average value for the last three years. Once that is struck, I presume that it will become fixed. The hon. Gentleman has long experience of farming. Can he give the House any indication of how this has worked during the last 10 years? Has the figure gone up during that time? Does he consider that this will be a good bargain from the point of view of himself and others, in that at last they will have some finality in the matter of increases?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: With the leave of the House, I must make it clear, first, that the only benefit I shall receive from this—I imagine that this applies to you, too, Mr. Deputy Speaker—is that I shall be saved the trouble of having to make returns to the sheriff when requested each year.
It is true that over the last year or two there has been an increase in the level of prices. It is not for me to comment on what might have caused that rise in the level of prices. This has been a trend over a period. There has been a slight upward trend in the price of grain. It may mean that we shall leave the fiars striking a price at a rising level compared with what they were a number of years ago. However, this must be seen in perspective. The number of calculations based on fiars is becoming much more limited as each year passes. Solidifying and holding it at a certain level instead of varying the level according to prices at each harvest will not be wholly unfair.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Schedule 3

AMENDMENT AND MODIFICATION OF ELECTION LAW

Lords Amendment: No. 77, in page 157, line 32, leave out paragraph 3(1) and insert:
3.—(1) In section 11 (polling districts and polling places), in subsection (2)(b), the words "or in Scotland, each electoral division" shall cease to have effect, and after subsection (2)(b) there shall be added the following paragraph—
(bb) In Scotland, each electoral area established for the purpose of local government elections which is within the constituency, and that part within the

constituency of any such area which is partly within the constituency and partly within another constituency, shall, in the absence of special circumstances, be a separate polling district or districts;".

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree, with the Lords in the said amendment.
I suggest that with this amendment we take the following Lords Amendments:
No. 78, in page 157, line 48, at end insert:
; but in the absence of special circumstances the said polling districts shall be those which were last designated for the purpose of parliamentary elections under section 11 of this Act."
No. 171, in page 290, line 11, column 3, before "Section 30." insert:
In section 11(2)(b), the words "or, in Scotland, each electoral division".
These amendments are designed to make the statutory provisions on the defining of polling districts correspond more closely with practice.
The effect of the amendments is to provide that the parliamentary polling districts are to be adopted as the polling districts for local elections, unless there are special circumstances. The saving for special circumstances is made in order to allow some latitude in the case where a constituency boundary crosses a local authority electoral boundary. In such a case it might not be possible to use exactly the same polling districts for both parliamentary and local elections.
All we are doing by the amendment is ensuring that what happens under statute corresponds with what is happening in practice.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 79, in page 158, line 35, at end insert:
12. In section 113(3) (person to whom petition questioning local election is presented), for paragraph (b) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
(b) in Scotland, to the sheriff principal of the sheriffdom in which the election took place or, where the election was in respect of a local authority whose area is situated within more than one sheriffdom, to the sheriffs principal of the sheriffdoms in which the area of the authority is situated.".

13. In section 117 (constitution of election court, etc.)—


(a) in subsection (1), for the words after "tried" there shall be substituted the following words—
(a) by the sheriff principal of the sheriffdom within which the challenged election took place; or
(b) where the election was in respect of a local authority whose area is situated within more than one sheriffdom, by the sheriffs principal of the sheriffdoms in which the area of the authority is situated; and where in such a case the sheriffs principal are unable to reach a unanimous decision, they shall state a case for the Court of Session and the Court may pronounce any deliverance which it would have been competent for the sheriffs to make.";
(b) in subsection (2), for the words "by the court" there shall be substituted the words "(unless imposed or made by the Court of Session in consequence of a case stated under subsection (1) above)";
(c) for subsection (3) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
(3) The place of trial shall be such place within the sheriffdom or sheriffdoms in which the area of the local authority is situated as the election court may determine.";
(d) in subsection (4), for the word "sheriffdom" there shall be substituted the words "said sheriffdom or sheriffdoms".

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment inserts new provisions amending Sections 113 and 117 of the Representation of the People Act 1949 so as to make appropriate provision for the lodging of election petitions and for the constitution of election courts in view of the fact that the areas of some of the new authorities fall within one or more sheriffdom.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 80, in page 158, line 38, at end insert:
13. In section 166 (Local elections in Scotland excluded from Parts II and III of Act), for the word "1947" there shall be substituted the word "1973 ".".

1.45 a.m.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a drafting amendment to alter a reference to the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947 in Section 166 of the Representation of the People Act 1949

to a reference to the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Schedule 9

AMENDMENTS WITH RESPECT TO FINANCE

Lords Amendment: No. 86, in page 168, line 33, leave out sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert:
(a) subsection (2)(f) shall cease to have effect;
(b) for subsection (3) there shall be substituted the following subsection:—
(3) A demand note shall be in such form, and shall contain such information in addition to the information required by subsection (2) above, as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State under section 111 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973".".

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be convenient also to discuss Lords Amendment No. 170, in Schedule 28, page 287, line 57, at end insert "(f)".

Mr. Younger: Paragraph 10 of Schedule 9 makes the form and content of the rate demand note matters for regulation by the Secretary of State under Clause 111, like other details of rating procedure.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 87, in page 174, line 24, after "be" insert:
to the councils of all districts within that region

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment requires the local assessors to provide estimates of the new rateable valuations of districts following each revaluation to district councils as well as to the regional councils as rating authorities.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 88, in page 175, line 27, at end insert:
In section 26(2), in the definition of "local authority", for the words from "county"


onwards there shall be substituted the words "regional, islands or district council".

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be convenient also to discuss Lords Amendment No. 89, in page 176, line 23, at end insert:
In section 46(1), in the definition of "local authority", for the words from "county" onwards there shall be substituted the words regional, islands or district council".

Mr. Younger: This amendment updates the definition of "local authority" in Section 26 of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1963.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Schedule 14

AMENDMENT OF ENACTMENTS RELATING TO ROADS

Lords Amendment: No. 92, in page 196, line 13, leave out paragraph 53.

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment rectifies an error in the Bill in relation to the adaptation of Section 149(5) of the Road Traffic Act 1960.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 93, in page 197, line 27, at end insert:
In section 24(2) (arrangements for patrolling school crossings), for heads (i) and (ii) there shall be substituted the words "the regional or islands council".

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment corrects an omission from the Bill by transferring the duty of appointing school crossing patrols to the new regional and islands authorities.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Schedule 16

AMENDMENT OF ENACTMENTS RELATING TO RIVER PURIFICATION

Lords Amendment: No. 99, in page 205, line 27, at end insert:
In section 29(4) (application of Act to tidal waters), the words from "subject" onwards shall cease to have effect.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): It will be convenient to take at the same time Lords Amendment No. 173, in Schedule 28, page 291, line 35, at end insert:
In section 29(4), the words from "subject" onwards.

Mr. Campbell: These amendments amend Section 29(4) of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act 1951 by repealing the modification that references to councils of counties and large burghs shall include references to river purification boards, which is unnecessary.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.

Schedule 17

AMENDMENT OF ENACTMENTS RELATING TO WATER

Lords Amendment: No. 101, in page 207, line 31, leave out "district council" and insert:
water authority, regional council, district council and water development board for every area

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be convenient to take at the same time the following Lords Amendments:
No. 102, in page 207, line 38, leave out "district council" and insert:
water authority, regional council, district council and water development board for any area ".
No. 103, in page 207, line 44, leave out "district council" and insert:
water authority, regional council, district council and water development board for any area


No. 182, in Schedule 28, page 300, line 2, at end insert:
In Schedule 2, paragraph 13.

Mr. Younger: These are drafting amendments in the interest of clarity and simplicity.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 104, in page 215, line 5, at end insert:

"The Water Act 1973

64. In the Water Act 1973 any reference to a regional water board shall be construed as a reference to a water authority."

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment provides for references in certain sections of the English Water Act 1973 to regional water boards to be construed as references to the new Scottish water authorities when in 1975 these bodies take over the functions of regional water boards.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 18

AMENDMENT OF CERTAIN ENACTMENTS RELATING TO TRANSPORT

Lords Amendment: No. 105, in page 215, line 40, leave out paragraph 2 and insert:
2. In section 10 (powers of Executive), the following amendments shall be made—

(a) in subsection (1)(xvi), the words "and the consent of the Minister" shall cease to have effect;
(b) for the word "county", in both places where it occurs, there shall be substituted the word "region"."

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be convenient to take at the same time the following Lords Amendments:
No. 106, in page 216, line 7, at end insert:
Section 11(4) shall cease to have effect.
No. 107, in page 217, line 36, at end insert:
and in the said section 16, in subsection (2), the words from "and (d)" onwards, and

subsections (3), (4) and (5) shall cease to have effect.
In section 18 (planning of passenger transport services in designated areas), the following amendments shall be made—

(a) in subsection (1), the words "to the Minister and" shall cease to have effect;
(b) in subsection (2), the words "to the Minister and" shall cease to have effect.

In section 21 (functions of traffic commissioners in designated areas), subsection (5)(a) shall cease to have effect.
No. 109, in page 219, line 10, after "12" insert "14".
No. 185, in Schedule 28, page 301, line 46, column 3, at end insert:
In section 10(1)(xvi), the words "and the consent of the Minister".
Section 11(4).
No. 186, in page 301, line 53, column 3, at end insert:
In section 16, in subsection (2), the words from "and (d)" onwards, and subsections (3), (4) and (5).
In section 18, in subsection (1), the words "to the Minister and", and in subsection (2), the words "to the Minister and".
Section 21(5)(a)
No. 187, in page 302, line 13, column 3, after "12" insert "14".

Mr. Younger: This is a series of amendments designed to relax certain of the controls at present exercised by the Secretary of State over passenger transport authorities and executives.

Mr. Ross: We welcome the relaxation, but we should like to know what the substance of it is here.

Mr. Younger: With the leave of the House, I shall try to explain it, if the House will bear with a somewhat lengthy explanation. The general principle behind the amendments is that it was thought inappropriate to continue the restrictions of the kind imposed by these sections of the Transport Act on passenger transport authorities after reorganisation, when passenger transport responsibilities will be taken over by the new regional authorities.
The amendment to Section 10(1) of the Transport Act means that a passenger executive no longer requires the consent of the Secretary of State to make certain arrangements with other persons for the carrying on of transport services by those persons in its area. It also makes the


appropriate substitution of "region" for "county" in the Act as at present.
The deletion of Section 11(4) of the Act removes from passenger transport executives the duty to make returns to the Secretary of State of their proposals for expenditure on capital account at such times and in such form as he may require. It also means that the Secretary of State will no longer be able to impose limits on this expenditure.
The amendment to Section 16 of the Act removes certain powers of the Secretary of State to give directions and make orders relating to the business of a passenger transport executive. He will no longer have the power to specify those matters which are to be included in the annual report of a PTA or PTE; he will no longer be able to give directions to a PTA to adjust its business methods where he thinks that it is charging too little; he can no longer apply these powers to specify businesses which he considers to be subsidiary or incidental to the main function of a passenger transport executive; and a PTE will no longer have the duty to ensure that no subsidiary carries on any business which the Secretary of State has ordered to be discontinued.
The amendments to Section 18 of the Act mean that passenger transport authorities and executives are no longer required to submit a statement of transport policy for their area to the Secretary of State, nor to send to him a copy of the transport plan prepared by them for the future development of passenger transport in their area.
The repeal of Section 21(5)(a) removes the Secretary of State's powers to make regulations requiring a passenger transport executive to furnish certain specified information to the Traffic Commissioners.
The amendment to page 219, line 10, by repealing paragraph 14 of Part III of Schedule 5 to the Transport Act, takes away the Secretary of State's power to make orders covering the making of reports and the furnishing of information by the passenger transport authorities and executives.
The amendments to Schedule 28 are consequential on the others. They are all part of our general policy of trying to give more freedom to these bodies and having less oversight of them. I hope that the House will accept them.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 108, in page 217, line 43, leave out "North Ayrshire" and insert "Cunninghame".

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we are taking Lords Amendment No. 110, in Schedule 19, page 223, line 8, leave out "North Ayrshire" and insert "Cunninghame".

Mr. Younger: These amendments substitute the name of the new district created on Report in the Commons in these two places in the schedules.

Mr. Ross: I rise to ask whether we are satisfied that we have the spelling right at last. Are we satisfied that there should be two "m" s and an "e" at the end, or should it be one "m" without an "e" or one "m" with an "e"? I do not think anyone will mind as long as we see that it is the same throughout. I think there has been a certain amount of difficulty and confusion about this. Has the Under-Secretary now decided what is to be the correct spelling of Cunninghame in this new geographical context?

Mr. Younger: With the leave of the House, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman, to whom it will be no surprise, that we have had a most difficult and interesting time trying to establish the spelling not only of Cunninghame but of some of the other names used in other amendments, such as, for instance, Loudoun, about which there was doubt. The first time it was put down it was spelt incorrectly. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not have done that. The research we have done in this instance establishes as far as we can that this is the most common usage, and I think we should now go firm on it. I hope that we have the right hon. Gentleman's support, because it is doubtful whether we could succeed without it.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Schedule 23

AMENDMENT OF ENACTMENTS RELATING TO PLANNING

Lords Amendment: No. 112, in page 231, line 11, at end insert:
In section 43 (unopposed revocation or modification), the following amendments shall be made—

(a) in subsection (1), the words from "and (b)" onwards shall cease to have effect;
(b) in subsection (3), the words from "and the notice" onwards shall cease to have effect."

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we are taking also the following Lords Amendments:

No. 114, in page 232, line 4, at end insert:
In section 153(1) (compensation where planning permission revoked or modified), the words from "(other" to "State)" shall cease to have effect.

No. 190, in Schedule 28, page 304, line 46, column 3. at end insert—
In section 43, in subsection (1), the words from "and (b)" onwards, and in subsection (3), the words from "and the notice" onwards.

No. 192, in page 305, line 20, column 3, at end insert:
In section 153(1), the words from "(other" to "State)".

Mr. Younger: At present, when a local planning authority revokes or modifies a planning permission under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972, it needs the Secretary of State's approval for its action unless the order is not opposed and no compensation is involved. The effect of these amendments is to remove the need for the Secretary of State's consent where the revocation or modification is unopposed, even where compensation is involved. I hope that the House will accept them.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 113, in page 231, line 36, at end insert:
() in subsection (3), the words "application for" shall cease to have effect;".

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I beg to move, That the House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is consequential because amendments already made to Section 107 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 remove the need to submit an application to the Secretary of State for confirmation on a direction for minimum compensation in the case of a listed building deliberately left derelict.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.

Schedule 25

RELAXATION OF CONTROLS

2.0 a.m.

Lords Amendment: No. 115, in page 241, leave out lines 3 and 4.

Mr. Younger: I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are also taking Lords Amendments Nos. 116, 118, 119, 120, 155, 162, 163, 164 and 193.

Mr. Younger: These are all minor consequential and drafting amendments to Schedules 25 and 28 reflecting repeals and amendments effected elsewhere.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 117, in page 243, line 34, at end insert:

"The Weights and Measures Act 1963

In section 4(2) (local standards), after the word "kept" there shall be inserted the words "in such manner and under such conditions as the Secretary of State may direct", the words "and approved for the purpose by the Board" shall cease to have effect, and for the words "approved in that behalf by the Board" there shall be substituted the words "which appear to the authority to be appropriate".

In section 5(3) (working standards etc.), the words "and approved for the purpose by the Board" shall cease to have effect.

In section 44(1) (inspector's fees), the words "with the consent of the Board" shall cease to have effect."

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I beg to move, That the House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): With it we shall also take Lords Amendments Nos. 177 to 179.

Mr. Campbell: The amendments remove the need for weights and measures


authorities to obtain central approval in relation to local standards, working standards and inspectors' fees. This is a relaxation of central government control over local authorities which we commend.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Schedule 26

ADAPTATION AND AMENDMENT OF ENACTMENTS

Lords Amendment: No. 123, in page 251, line 21, at end insert:
In section 11(2), after the word "the" there shall be inserted the words "area of the former".

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
It has the effect of maintaining the exemption in the Celluloid and Cinematograph Film Act 1922 under which the 1922 Act does not apply to Glasgow. The city has local Act powers first obtained in 1915 and subsequently consolidated in 1937.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 128, in page 258, line 2, after "14(1)" insert "—(a)".

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With it we shall take Lords Amendment No. 129, in page 258, line 4, at end insert:
(b) in the definition of "authorised person", in paragraph (b), for the words "local authority" there shall be substituted the words "islands or district council";
(c) in the definition of "local authority", for the words "county council and a town" there shall be substituted the words "regional, islands or district".

Mr. Younger: These are drafting amendments required to complete the replacement in the Protection of Birds Act 1954 of references to existing local authorities with references to the appropriate new local authorities.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 130, in page 258, line 21, at end insert:

"The Crofters (Scotland) Act 1955

In section 37(1) (interpretation), in the definition of "crofting counties", after the word "the" there shall be inserted the word "former"."

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a drafting amendment to take account of the fact that the definition of the crofting counties in the 1955 Act relates to administrative areas replaced by this Bill.

Mr. Ross: Does this mean that there will be a re-definition of crofter counties? Crofter counties appear in some fairly important legislation in relation to grants. There are also crofter county road schemes and the rest. Now we are going to have a new definition of the Highland area and part of the right hon. Gentleman's constituency is, I believe, to be virtually included within the re-definition. Does this mean that the redefinition of the crofter counties administrative area will include areas which at present are not within crofter counties?

Mr. Gordon Campbell: The intention is simply drafting in order to translate the present situation into the terms of the Bill. But of course there may be questions about boundaries to be considered in future.

Mr. Ross: But presumably this provision does not make changes at the present time, in that the necessary changes in respect of the local authority administrative areas which may be new will be the only definition changes. Is it the case that there will be no other extension or the withdrawal of any area from former crofting counties?

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Yes. This is purely drafting and does not mean a change in boundaries and areas.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 131, in page 258, line 29, leave out "(4)" and insert "(2)".

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment corrects a printing error.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 132, in page 261, line 19, at end insert:
In section 4 (saving for byelaws), for the words "subsection (5) of section 300 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947" there shall be substituted the words "section 202(3) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973".

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a drafting amendment to substitute in the Noise Abatement Act 1960 a reference to the provision in the Bill relating to byelaws which replaces Section 300(5) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 133, in page 267, line 21, at end insert:

"The Post Office Act 1969

. In section 86, in the definition of "local authority", in paragraph (b), for the words "county council or a town" there shall be substituted the words "regional, islands or district"."

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This provides a general definition of "local authority" in terms of the new structure for the purpose of the Post Office Act 1969.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 134, in page 267, line 35, at end insert:
'In section 26(b), for the word "County", in both places where it occurs, there shall be substituted the words "Islands Area".

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a drafting amendment to bring the specific reference to Orkney in the Agriculture Act 1970 into line with the new structure.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 135 in page 267, leave out lines 43 to 46.

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This removes from Schedule 27 a reference to the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, which is duplicated in paragraph 81 of Schedule 14, where it more appropriately belongs.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 136, in page 268, line 9, at end insert:

"The Island of Rockall Act 1972

189A. In section 1, for the words from "District" to "Inverness" there shall be substituted the words "Western Isles"."

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The House will recall that a short Act was passed in 1972 about the Island of Rockall. This is a minor amendment to substitute the name of the local authority area for the existing one within which Rockall falls.

Mr. Ross: I express great relief that the amendment is here. It was a source of some amusement when I raised this matter at an earlier stage and suggested that a change would have to be made. This is a very important change, and it will certainly seem so in 10 years' time, when we formally annexe the Island of Rockall to the County Council of Inverness.
Inverness being wiped out and becoming part, first of all, of the Highland Region in the White Paper, and eventually part of the Western Isles, which was most appropriate, I am very glad to see that notice was taken of the need for a change, but regret that the Government missed this important point at an earlier time, although their attention had been drawn to it.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 137, in page 268, line 19, at end insert:
. In section 4(2) (authority to be informed about milk tests), for the words from "county council" to "situated" there shall be substituted the words "islands or district council in Scotland".

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment ensures that islands and district councils, which are to be responsible for the enforcement of milk legislation, will be notified of milk tests.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment, No. 138, in page 268, line 24, at end insert:

"The Independent Broadcasting Authority Act 1973

In section 11(6)(b), for the words from "council" to "small burgh" there shall be substituted the words "regional, islands or district council"."

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment redefines local authority for the purposes of Section 11 of the Independent Broadcasting Authority Act 1973.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 139, in page 268, line 24, at end insert:

"The Employment Agencies Act 1973

In section 13(1) (interpretation), the following amendments shall be made—

(a) in the definition of "licensing authority", in paragraph (f), for the words from "a large burgh" onwards there shall be substituted the words "an islands area, the council of that islands area, and in any other case the council of the district in which the premises are situated";
(b) in the definition of "local authority", for the words from "Scotland" onwards there shall be substituted the words "Scotland, means a regional, islands or district council"."

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment deals with a new local authority function which has been created by a statute, the Employment Agencies Act 1973, which has been enacted since the Bill was introduced. It confers on district and islands councils the function of licensing, inspecting and controlling employment agencies. The present local authorities on which the 1973 Act confers this function are the county and the large burgh.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 140, in page 268, line 24, at end insert:

"The Hallmarking Act 1973

193. In section 20 (local inquiries), in subsection (1)(b), for the words "subsections (2) to (9) of section 355 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947" there shall be substituted the words "subsections (2) to (8) of section 211 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973"."

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment has been made necessary by the recently enacted Hallmarking Act 1973.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 141, in page page 268, line 24, at end insert:

"The Badgers Act 1973

. In section 11 (interpretation), in the definition of "local authority", in paragraph (c), for the words "a county or a burgh" there shall be substituted the words "an islands area or district"."

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment picks up a new reference to a local authority included in an Act of Parliament enacted since the Bill was introduced, and substitutes the appropriate new local authority for the present one.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 142, in page 268, line 24, at end insert:

"The Breeding of Dogs Act 1973

195. In section 5(2) (interpretation), in the definition of "local authority", for the words "the council of any county or burgh" there shall be substituted the words "an islands or district council"."

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment gives the islands and district councils responsibility for registration in relation to commercial dog breeding establishments.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 27

AMENDMENTS OF BURGH POLICE (SCOTLAND) ACTS 1892 TO 1911

Lords Amendment: No. 143, in page 273, line 26, at end insert:
. In section 330, for the words "burgh general assessment" there shall be substituted the words "general or district rate".

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we will take Lords Amendments Nos. 144 to 154 and Nos. 158 to 160.

Mr. Younger: These are a number of small drafting amendments to the Burgh Police (Scotland) Acts 1892 to 1911 which have been picked up in the course of consideration of the Bill and which it was considered simpler to lay together as a composite amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Schedule 28

REPEALS

Lords Amendment: No. 156, in page 279, column 3, leave out lines 53 and 54 and insert:

"In section 11, subsections (1), (3) and (5).

Section 14.
Section 16.
Sections 39 to 42.
Section 58.
Section 67."

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment repeals provisions of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1889 which have been overtaken by the provisions of other Acts or by this Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 167, in page 286, line 2, column 3, after "110" insert:
in subsection (1), the definition of "Large burgh", and

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a drafting amendment which is necessary to repair an omission

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 172, in page 291, line 23, at end insert:


''14 &amp; 15 Geo. 6. c. 15.
The Local Government (Scotland) Act 1951
The Whole Act".

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The purpose of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1951 was to amend Sections 191, 225 and 259 (2) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947 and to make consequential provision. These sections of the 1947 Act are epealed by the Bill. Accordingly the 1951 Act should also be repealed.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 176, in page 295, line 6, column 3, at beginning insert "Section 27"

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment effects a minor repeal in the light of the relaxation of central government control over local authorities.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 183, in page 301, line 24, column 3, at end insert:
In Schedule 1, paragraph 1."'

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a consequential amendment to the repeal of Section 28 of the Public Health (Scotland) Act 1897 in paragraph 31 of Schedule 26.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 184, in page 301, column 3, leave out lines 29 to 31.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a drafting amendment consequential on an amendment which we made during the Report stage.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 188, in page 303, line 35, at end insert:


"1969 c. 41.
The National Mod (Scotland) Act 1969.
The Whole Act."

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Any of the new Scottish local authorities will be able to make payments to the Mod without the need to make use of the 1969 Act, and since that Act has no other purpose it is appropriate that it should be repealed in the Bill.
An Comunn has been informed, and agrees that the Act no longer seems necessary.

Mr. Ross: We are grateful to the Under-Secretary for his explanation. He has assuaged any possible feelings of harm by making it clear that the Act, which I believed was originally a Private Member's Bill with Government support, has not been dropped without provision having been made in the Bill. There is a general clause that amply covers the matter.
Are there any figures showing the extent to which the Act was used by local authorities? At the time of its passage we were led to believe that it was essential. Can we be assured that there will be ample support from the same source for the National Mod?
We had a very enjoyable time recently in Ayr, where the Mod was held very successfully.

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for mentioning that the Mod was so successful in Ayr. I was privileged to be present at the final concert, and everybody enjoyed it very much.
I have no means of finding out the amount of contributions made by various local authorities to the Mod. Offhand, I can only think of asking An Comunn, and I am not sure whether it should give the information. Another possibility would be to circularise local authorities, which I would not recommend. I shall try to obtain the information for the right hon. Gentleman, but I am not confident of being able to do so.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the Mod is very important. I am

sure that the new arrangement will enable local authorities to be very generous to An Comunn.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 194, in page 305, line 46, at end insert:


1973 c. 28.
The Rate Rebate Act 1973.
The whole Act."

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The Rate Rebate Act 1973 provides for the total disregard of attendance allowances in calculating an applicant's income for the purpose of a rate rebate under the Rating Act 1966. Attendance allowances are already disregarded for the purpose of rent rebates and allowances under the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1972. The rate rebate scheme under the 1966 Act is to be replaced, with effect from 16th May 1974, by a new and wider scheme under Clauses 112 to 115 of the Bill; and it is intended in the regulations prescribing the new scheme to continue the disregard of attendance allowances.
Repeal of the existing rate rebate arrangements is already provided for in Schedule 28 and it follows that the Rate Rebate Act of 1973 should also be repealed, as proposed by the amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill: Mr. Gordon Campbell, Mr. Carmichael, Mr. Gray, Mr. Ross and Mr. Younger; Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. Gordon Campbell.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question pro-proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John Stradling Thomas.]

SOUTH YORKSHIRE WATERWAY

2.26 a.m.

Mr. Richard Kelley: At this late hour I do not intend to say as much as I would have said had I been a little more fortunate than having my name come out of the hat on a Scottish night. I have often been fascinated by the verbosity of the Scot and his complete contempt for the moving hands of the clock.
The matter to which I wish to draw the attention of the House has been seriously considered by many people over the past few years. It is the problem of the better utilisation of Britain's rather ancient waterways to solve modern transport problems. Many of the old canals have been found to be of little use in this context, but some have certainly been found to be of real potential value if they were brought up to the standard which would enable modern engineering and marine technology to be brought into use.
Such a waterway is the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation. A great deal of research has been done to find out whether any great economic and commercial advantage could accrue to the area and to the nation if this waterway were brought up to the present day bulk freight navigation standard;. and in every case the firm answer has been the affirmative. The canal came into use about 200 years ago and links the Tinsley area of Sheffield with the great Humber ports, ports which are growing daily in importance as our trade reaches out eagerly to continental European and Scandinavian markets.
How can we survive in the present day without realising the unique importance of water as a means of transport? Roads are worn out and have to be repaired. Railways run on tracks which pose constant problems to large groups of men who have to work to keep the tracks in order at the weekends for use during the working days. But water is always there. It never wears out. We cannot destroy the surface of a canal by loads which are too heavy, bad tyres, or anything of that kind.
Water can be made into steam or converted into ice, but it returns to its original state and is the element that provides for the passage of ships over

its surface to all parts of the world. It is the greatest common property of mankind and we should be foolish if we failed to exploit its great potentialities.
A scheme has been submitted to improve the carrying capacity of the Sheffield and South Yorkshire canal to take the larger ships and barges which can be manoeuvred in modern canals and carry very heavy and bulky loads from industrial centres of production to the open sea. This is what the improvement of the Sheffield and South Yorkshire navigation is about, but there are other factors beyond the hard cash nexus.
There is the question of the place in which we live. Who in this House has not been faced with the problem of the juggernaut tearing the heart out of his villages and trying to reconcile that with the need to earn our bread? If we could get this scheme adopted and approved by the Minister we could carry 2 million tons of cargo from Tinsley to the Humber in 22,000 journeys as against the 166,660 journeys which would be necessary by road on the modern juggernauts. This would save 3 million gallons of fuel, all of which is imported, and the saving to the balance of payments would be hundreds of thousands of pounds.
The extra bonus would be that we own the water upon which the craft sail. There would be no charge, other than for ordinary maintenance, which is not very considerable when we realise that for 200 years very little money has been spent on the maintenance of the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation.
The problem of extracting oil from a diminishing and less reliable source is becoming a national consideration. Surely with the Middle East situation Her Majesty's Government must be looking for some means of reducing our enormous dependence upon this source of fuel.
The scheme that I have mentioned will provide a cheaper form of transport for goods suited to this mode of carriage. It will also provide expanses of water which can be used by the people, because the water belongs to the people and we can do nothing to alter that.
The use of this waterway depends upon the Government's attitude to this scheme. Either the canal becomes a Government investment or it becomes a public failure. It cannot remain as it is. I am asking for an opportunity to be given for water to


compete reasonably with roads and railways, for ordinary people still to have somewhere to go where the stress of life is no greater than the lapping of water against the hull of a lazy barge, for great cargoes to be brought down from the industrial heart of Yorkshire in barges built by our own people to take up to 700 tons, which can be placed aboard a mother ship, taken across the North Sea, locked into the canal system of continental Europe, and deliver their loads, untouched by human hand, to ports on the River Danube. This is what the scheme offers to us as a nation and we would be fools not to grasp the opportunity with both hands.
Systems operating today—lighter aboard ship and barge aboard catamaran—make all this possible. Other European countries are developing these systems at a great pace. The first catamaran to take lighters on board was launched in Denmark in August. Many others are being built in Europe. If we do not take this opportunity to bring this important waterway up to the standards required by modern techniques we shall be missing a great opportunity.

2.35 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Kelley) for having so succinctly made his case at this late hour following the long debate on Scottish local government.
I am in some difficulty because the hon. Member knows that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has recently made an announcement to the effect that he is hoping to reach a decision and to make a statement about this proposal in the fairly near future. That being the case, I can only outline the many factors which need to be taken into account and carefully balanced before that decision is made. I can assure the hon. Member that his eloquent plea will be carefully considered by the Secretary of State and myself in arriving at our conclusion.
As the hon. Member has said, this matter has been the subject of numerous proposals in the past. In 1966 the British Waterways Board submitted a proposal to the then Minister of Transport for an improvement scheme which would have cost £2·6 million. The then Minister

took the view that the scheme depended for its success on the waterway capturing substantial new traffic. She concluded however that there was then insufficient evidence that the increase in capacity of the waterway would attract enough traffic to provide an adequate return for this public investment.
More recently the board engaged consultants to examine the potential traffic for an improved waterway, over the period up to the year 2000. With this new information the board submitted in May last year a further improvement scheme which it now estimates would cost £3·1 million. This includes about £800,000 for deferred maintenance which the board considers will be necessary whether or not the waterway is improved to the new capacity proposed.
The present major traffic on the Navigation is coal, but this has been declining, and the board and its consultants agree that if there is to be a growth in traffic in the future, it must come from other non-traditional cargoes. They argue that the economies of scale which the larger waterway would permit would enable freight carriers substantially to lower their overall freight rates—by something like 25–30 per cent.—and that after investing in new craft, they would be able to attract new business. The board estimates that to pay the interest and depreciation charges on the capital expenditure involved, the tolls from non-coal traffic would need to increase in the first 10 years by approximately ten-fold.
The consultants examined the pattern of industry in the area and considered how this might be expected to develop over the next quarter century. There are naturally difficulties in extrapolation over long periods, but there will no doubt be a substantial growth in the volume of commodities produced in the area of a type potentially available for carriage on the waterway. The real question then becomes: what proportion of the likely future traffic can actually be attracted to the waterway?
This is not an easy judgment to make. It involves not only guessing how waterway freight rates will be able to move but also a judgment on the extent to which the competitive transport modes—railway and road haulage—alter their own policies to face any new competition that might arise from the waterway.
My Department has examined in great detail the financial return which the board postulated in the light of its own experience and also the consultants' opinion, but we concluded that there was a substantial element of risk in investment on those terms. Therefore, in March I asked Sir Frank Price, the Chairman of the Board, to seek more concrete evidence that the waterway would, if improved as proposed, attract the necessary additional traffic to justify the expenditure of over £2 million.
We received the results of the board's search for this evidence in July. With the help of the Rotherham Area Development Corporation, the board had canvassed some 365 firms and organisations in the area. As a result of these approaches, 185 of those firms canvassed gave undertakings that they would offer for quotation on the waterway, if improved as proposed, a total of 950,000 tons of freight in 1975. Those undertakings have been given without commitment by the firms and organisations that they would in the event place their goods for carriage by waterway. Nevertheless, a figure of 950,000 tons is a substantial total. It compares with the 750,000 tons of traffic that the board estimates would need to be carried annually to finance the operation. The task facing the board would be to win about 80 per cent. of the traffic for which promises to seek quotations have been made. That is the major task for the board.
The independent carriers are important because the board carries less than one-fifth of non-coal traffic on the waterway. The independent carriers would need to invest substantially in new vessels and the like. I have asked the board to consider with the carriers ways in which the board might be guaranteed sufficient revenue to service the new public money required by this proposal. The board has approached the carriers, but so far the carriers have not felt able to enter any firm financial commitment, although they have expressed their willingness to open negotiations with potential customers and to invest the necessary capital.
I realise the difficulty of carriers giving now, two or three years in advance of improvement of the waterway, any guarantees. If such guarantees had been forthcoming this would have settled the issue. Those guarantees have not been forthcoming and, in their absence, there is the difficult task of making the best

judgment, on all the evidence available, about whether the necessary traffic will materialise. That judgment remains to be made.
The hon. Member rightly said that this was not simply a matter of strict economics. I assure him that the Secretary of State and myself will pay attention to the environmental improvements which potentially could be achieved. I agree with him that the more heavy freight that travels by water the less heavy lorry traffic, with its fumes, dirt, noise and vibrations, is likely to go on the roads. In principle we should like to see much more traffic moving on the waterways and indeed on the railways. But this can happen only if the traffic is actually diverted—if shippers and hauliers positively decide to take their freight off the roads and put it on the waterborne barges. It is not enough to say that the environment would gain from canal transport. Much more crucial is the need to demonstrate that the transfer would take place, for without that transport, the environment gains not at all. In calculating the pros and cons of this project, I give the assurance that the Government will give full weight to the environmental advantages, but the issue comes down to the actual volume of freight, which would otherwise be carried on unsuitable roads through towns and villages, which can be attracted to the waterway.
I make no bones about it. It is a difficult decision, and we have not yet taken it. Before we do, the hon. Gentleman's views and those of his constituents and others with whom I have had personal discussions during my visits to Rotherham will be fully taken into account. We appreciate the sentiments of local people who would like to see this Navigation improved. I recognise and, indeed, share the feelings of environmentalists who believe that canal transport is cleaner, quieter and less obtrusive than the juggernaut lorries, and I am as concerned as is the hon. Gentleman about the amenity aspects of the waterways, having travelled on them myself from time to time.
All in all, I can tonight give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I will decide whether this investment is justified on the basis of all the facts and


with full sympathy for the views of those who wish to see waterways playing a larger part in the commercial life of the country.
The Government cannot fail to have regard to the taxpayers' money and to the overriding necessity of getting value for it. In the end, the basic question of benefits comes down to a judgment of

the volume of traffic which the waterway could attract if improved. That is the basic issue on which my right hon. Friend and I are now seeking to reach a view, and my right hon. Friend expects to make a statement to the House as soon as we have done so.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes to Three o'clock.